Boat turnbacks make harsh deterrents pointless

Australia's policy of mandatory detention isn't what is stopping the boats, and we should put an end to the untold damage that is being inflicted on people's lives, writes Mike Steketee.

"It has not been easy for organised world opinion in the United Nations or elsewhere to act directly in respect of some of the dreadful events which have driven so many people from their own homes and their own fatherland, but at least we can in the most practical fashion show our sympathy for those less fortunate than ourselves who have been the innocent victims of conflicts and upheavals of which in our own land we have been happy enough to know nothing."

- Robert Menzies, prime minister, during the opening of World Refugee Year, September 1959

Even some of the strongest supporters of the Liberal Party and its policy of turning back the boats cannot feel comfortable about many of the actions being taken in the name of securing our sovereign borders.

They do not fit easily with the small "l" liberal philosophy that was an important part of the big "l" Liberal Party that Menzies founded - beliefs that have been muted but not eradicated under successive conservative Liberal prime ministers in John Howard and Tony Abbott.

In waging war against people smugglers, we are punishing their clients, who have turned to us for help - help that we have offered through our membership of the Refugee Convention. The armoury directed at deterring asylum seekers from coming by boat, implemented by Labor and Liberal governments, is astonishing in its extent and ferocity.

Most of it achieves nothing other than degrading and in some cases ultimately destroying people's lives. It is all the more pointless now that the one deterrent that has been effective - turning around the boats - has been implemented. A group of Australian experts on refugee policy believe there is a better way, even working within the present political constraints.

We should do all we can to discourage people from taking dangerous sea journeys but we should also ensure there are alternatives for genuine refugees. The gold standard was achieved under the Fraser government. Deaths at sea have always been a feature of refugee flows. A document prepared for the Australian Cabinet in 1979 estimated that between 50 per cent and 70 per cent of those fleeing in the wake of the Vietnam War drowned.

Then, as now, people driven by sheer desperation continued to get on boats. Then, as now, government action stopped the boats. Then, unlike now, people were given an alternative: Australia joined the US, China and Canada to reach an agreement under which each country took substantial numbers of Vietnamese and Vietnam agreed to stop pushing people out of the country. Australian officials, together with those from other countries, processed people in camps in Malaysia and other south-east Asian countries and flew the successful applicants to Australia.

Without the same sense of crisis and with refugees fleeing from many different countries, it has been impossible to replicate such an arrangement. Instead, successive Australian governments have chosen other options, all specifically rejected by the Fraser cabinet, like turning back boats (which then immigration minister Michael MacKellar told Cabinet, prophetically as it turned out, "would be courting international pariah status"), offshore processing, Australian detention centres and temporary protection visas.

Turning back boats is the one policy that has unambiguously achieved its objective of stemming the flow of boat people. But it comes with costs. For some, the danger at sea has been replaced by the risk of forced return to the country from which they fled - like the 41 asylum seekers Australia sent back to Sri Lanka, a country which, assurances of a peaceful nation to the contrary, continues to persecute Tamils, including through torture and sexual violence, according to the US State Department, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and Amnesty International, among others.

There is the farcical saga of the 157 asylum seekers kept on a floating Australian prison on the high seas to ensure there is no blemish on Immigration Minister Scott Morrison's record of stopping the boats. There is the damage to the relationship with Indonesia, including the likely long-term consequences for co-operation on refugee issues.

Stopping the boats may solve a political problem in Australia but it does so by dumping the issue into other countries' laps. People smugglers will look for other countries to which to send their clients. Genuine refugees who are deterred from fleeing by Australia's tough policy run the risk of persecution and worse.

The other policies of deterrence in Australia have not worked. The two big flows of boat people - between 1999 and 2001 and between 2009 and 2012 - occurred after the introduction of mandatory detention as a blanket policy in 1994.

Not only has it failed to stop asylum seekers coming by boat but it has inflicted untold damage on their lives. The evidence is consistent and unambiguous, most recently from the Human Rights Commission's visit to Christmas Island, that people left in limbo, with no guarantee of an end point, despair over their future and can bear the mental health scars for the rest of their lives. The effects on children, 983 who remained in detention centres at the end of May, are particularly rapid and severe.

At least most of the people who made it to Australia by boat before the gates slammed shut are now either living in the community on bridging visas or in community detention. Immigration Minister Scott Morrison wants to implement a form of temporary protection visas for those found to be refugees. With no commitment that the visas will be renewed or that they will not be sent back, it is another form of enforced limbo, leading to the same spiral of despair and mental illness. Most of them have been denied the right to work, creating yet another source of despair. Jane McAdam, professor in international refugee law at the University of NSW, describes it to me as "creating a broken future citizenry".

Legislation introduced last month by Immigration Minister Scott Morrison sets up yet more hurdles for asylum seekers. One measure lifts the threshold for people at risk of torture applying for so-called complementary protection (an alternative to refugee status) to 50 per cent. "In reality it means that even if an asylum seeker has a 49 per cent chance of being tortured, Australia will still send them home," wrote McAdam for The Conversation.

She was one of 35 experts from diverse backgrounds and perspectives, together with federal MPs, who met a fortnight ago to look at future policy. The details of their discussions are confidential until a report is released later this year but a discussion paper that was fed into the process points to a better way forward.

It suggests detention should be kept to an absolute minimum, given the harm it causes. Asylum seekers should be given firm timelines for processing their claims, even though it might take three years to make decisions, given the large numbers involved. In the meantime, they should have work rights and health and welfare safety nets. If those found to be refugees are granted only temporary protection initially, there should be a defined process leading to permanent residence. Those not found to be refugees should receive reintegration help when returned to their countries.

Because of the harsh condition in Nauru and Manus Island, claims there should be processed within a year. As well, asylum seekers should be allowed some freedom of movement outside the detention centres. Better co-operation with other countries in the region should include more funding to help other governments support asylum seekers.

These and other proposals would be steps towards restoring our standing as a nation to which many Australians, including Liberals, aspire - one that was among the first under the Menzies government to adopt the Refugee Convention and that Menzies described in the same broadcast in 1959:

It is a good thing that Australia should have earned a reputation for a sensitive understanding of the problems of people in other lands; that we should not come to be regarded as people who are detached from the miseries of the world.

Mike Steketee is a freelance journalist. He was formerly a columnist and national affairs editor for The Australian. View his full profile here.

John Coochey:

bide and fecht:

25 Jul 2014 8:09:00am

The level of resources directed at achieving an answer to a paranoid question is astonishing....From the level of distrust its created at the government to the amount of resources provided and finally to the level of smug satisfaction from those who are happiest watching the world burn is gobsmacking. Certainly up there with the same amount of fascination at repealing the carbon tax, while increasing others and convincing the likes of yourselves they're doing a great job. You'll never wake up...

Dean:

Oaktree:

25 Jul 2014 10:11:54am

Good morning Dean,

I was merely responding to Alfie's accusation.

I do not approve of the treatment being dealt to the asylum seekers, neither, by the way, does the UN.

Logic tells me that Morrison is breaking all sorts of moral boundaries, and international laws. This is, admittedly a difficult situation and Australia is not handling it well. Making it a political issue was a cheap and shameful action on firstly Howard's part, and latterly Abbott's. The inhumanity which has followed is sickening.

What developed countries are happy to do to other countries' children is disgraceful. These children will probably become radicalised right on Australia's doorstep, and who will be to blame?

Most of these people have the legal right to come, and if they were welcomed in and integrated into the communities would prove hard-working individuals who place a high value on education for their children. There are many Asian and Middle Eastern families where I live, and they have started up businesses and joined the school communities.

By the very nature of things a vacuum will be filled. One way or another Australia will become more populated through necessity. I would, personally, prefer we were in charge of this change, rather than being invaded by force in some unforeseeable circumstance in the future.

rb:

25 Jul 2014 10:48:52am

Hi Oaktree - can you please be the first person to justify how 1,100 deaths at sea was a better outcome than the present situation? Go on, give it a go. Everyone from the Labor / Fairfax / ABC love-in dodges it. We get the cheap 'all care, no responsibility' moralising ... good for you. Now try to justify the position or better still provide a better solution.

Darren:

25 Jul 2014 11:30:12am

Hi RB. Let me respond in place of Oaktree. The deaths at sea during the term of Labor in office happened at sea while NOT in the custody of Australian authorities. Once in custody, the asylum seekers are subject to the will of the Australian government and with it comes the requirement that the Australian government treat these people with at least a basic sense of decency, and that is what the Abbott government have a reckless indifference towards. Child abuse can never be an acceptable means to an end, but with the coalition child abuse is embraced as demonstrating strength.

Andie:

25 Jul 2014 3:57:22pm

Darren, all the people currently in custody were put ther by the ALP government. The backlog in processing is all the fault of the ALP because of1. Gillard suspended ALL processing for over 6 months 2. during this time thousands more arrived adding to the wait.

This is just another failed "legacy" policy of the inept ALP governments the has cost over $12 Billion.

Abbott and co have already saved us $2 billion because they have a policy that works and will allow more real refugees from the camps around the world to be brought to Australia and supported on arrival as used to happen until Rudd and Gillard filled the refugee quota with queue jumping illegal arrivees.

rb:

Oaktree:

25 Jul 2014 11:43:09am

I don't justify deaths at see, there are a range of circumstances well beyond my control that encourage people to embark on such a risky venture. We don't know how many people die at sea under the present regime; for one thing boats may be sinking without any authority being aware of the incidents. For another, the current Government is using a blatant pretext to suppress all information and this should be most concerning to all our citizens.

A better solution would be to educate people about the dangers of coming by boat, rather than mistreating the people who do survive the voyage.

elsbrook:

GregL:

25 Jul 2014 11:55:49am

Rb no one is dodging the issue at all. The fact of the matter is that the boats have not stopped. There have been boats but these boats have been intercepted and in some cases the people transferred onto other craft and sent packing back to Indonesia or wherever. In the current case we have over a hundred people floating somewhere around the Indian ocean after being intercepted on the high seas (admitted to the High Court by the government).

What is being done here is simple. Forget the so called compassion of draconian policy leading to less deaths, this is a furphy. The purpose of the policy is political, that is to ensure that the coalition scores heavily in the outer metropolitan seats of the large cities. If this demographic was to miraculously demand that there be more compassion shown and the people processed on shore I have little doubt it would happen.

In America now the political class is looking at the effect that Abbott's hard line stance had on votes, and are using the same rhetoric and action after seeing the electoral advantage it provided in Australia. The Governor of Texas recently mobilised the national guard in an Operation Border Protection like process and we are seeing similar life saving motivation rhetoric coming from Tea Party aligned politicians.

A better solution would be as Mike suggests. Rapid processing of claims so that the non genuine people are quickly repatriated and the genuine refugees treated humanely. Surely this is not too much to ask.

rb:

CM:

25 Jul 2014 5:05:02pm

Unfortunately it probably is, unless you don't mind if on the one hand the assessment process is extremely shallow, relying on stereotypes and rejecting many genuine refugees, and on the other, that it will not be possible to return many of those so "rejected" since it may not be easily established who they are and where they came from. Or perhaps you know otherwise?

splod1:

25 Jul 2014 12:50:40pm

rb: If you seek a better solution, you have only to read the above article, focussing on the solution created when Fraser was our PM: "Australia joined the US, China and Canada to reach an agreement under which each country took substantial numbers of Vietnamese and Vietnam agreed to stop pushing people out of the country. Australian officials, together with those from other countries, processed people in camps in Malaysia and other south-east Asian countries and flew the successful applicants to Australia."How about a similar international cooperation? Don't let them get on the boats that you obviously detest: send our own seaworthy ships and our aeroplanes and bring them back to Oz.

rb:

25 Jul 2014 4:21:55pm

Reasonable idea. But I think the largely economic reasons for most of our recent arrivals would see a return to backing people traffickers over bureaucrats in that scenario. Very different story back in the mid-late 70s.

Ruttegar:

25 Jul 2014 12:50:42pm

rb - Can you please be the first person to prove that the current situation is resulting in no deaths at sea? Sure none have reached our shores but that doesn't mean none have left and perished. We have no transparency from this government so we are just believe them?

LeftRightOut:

25 Jul 2014 10:27:41am

We have an international obligation to properly process any person coming to our country seeking refugee status. This does not mean that we must resettle them in Australia. As was done during the Vietnam war, agreements were made to resettle in multiple countries. If the resettlement happens outside Asia, the risk that they will continue to try to come to Australia by boat is high. If the resettlement is within Asia then it makes attempting to come to Australia less attractive. So a good approach would be to make arrangements with an Asian country to send all boat arrivals to that country as a swap - along the lines of what Gillard proposed. This takes a humanitarian approach if the country that we deal with is a secure and safe country. However, this may not appease the outrage of those who don't want any refugees, particularly where their opinion is race based.

prison:

The high courts ruling reflects the expectations of the international community of australia as a signatory of the refugee convention.

If they are assessed in australia and deemed legitimate, then what is the problem? If they are not a legitimate refugee they get sent back home.

The other solution is to remove ourselves from the refugee convention....do we want that?

If someone in another country broke that countries law to pay people smugglers to get on a boat then they are guilty of no crime here. Its not a loophole, its simply not something we have control over unless we want to become Team Australia World policemen.

we need a referrendum on this. Not the usual expensive paper vote rubbish - go straight to an online vote. If Australians want to stay a signatory to the convention then we must abide by the rules or else get it amended by the world community to suite what we want. Untill then, the high courts will continue to find our governments actions illegal and we will continue to be cricified by all international aide agencies for our disgraceful policy which breaches the convention.

Ms T.:

25 Jul 2014 10:27:56am

Just as righties first port of call is to call anyone who doesn't agree with them and their acceptance and, sometimes, pleasure derived from our governments treating of people with deliberate cruelty, a bleeding heart leftie.

You don't have to be a leftie to expect our government to honour it's word and it's signature. You just have to believe our word should have meaning and value.

You don't have to be a bleeding heart leftie to know that saving lives isn't what this is about. it is apparent that they don't care what happens to these people, what they are fleeing, what happens to them if they stay put, we only care that they don't come here. In others words let them die elsewhere cause we don't want to know.

We don't even take the time to see if they are genuine or not before deciding they will never set foot on Australian soil.

There is another way. If the government truly wanted to remove the pull factor without having to resort to cruelty and the trashing of our word and signature, they could remove us from the Refugee Convention. That would completely remove the pull factor.

At least that would be honest.

So why do they not do that?

Could it be that making sure this issue, or at least the threat of it, is always around because it is a useful political tool and a vote generator.

Ducktagnan:

25 Jul 2014 3:25:58pm

Opting out of the 1950's Refugee Convention is the best suggestion on these posts.I'm betting that most of the developed/western world would follow suit ( France, Holland, UK, USA to name just a few ).Then we could start again with a 21st century approach.But it will never happen. Too many vested interests to ensure that the status quo remains.Just imagine - David Manne and co being unemployed, and the hyphenated-one disappearing from our news on TV.The mind boggles.

Andie:

25 Jul 2014 4:06:52pm

Therefore you would class Rudd and the second of his governments including Bowen. Burke, Marles and Shorten who masterminded and instigated the PNG solution of deliberate cruelty, that they don't care what happens to these people, what they are fleeing, what happens to them if they stay put, we only care that they don't come here, let them die elsewhere cause we don't want to know and not taking the time to see if they are genuine or not before deciding they will never set foot on Australian soil.

SuzyQ:

Miss T and Ducktagnan you have a point, it would at least be honest to withdraw from the Convention, and -in theory - we would still have the discretion to accept genuine refugees.

However, there is always a quid pro quo with any international convention, at least for those nations who generally play by the rules.

We might look a tad hypocritical if we expect other nations to play by the rules (the example of Japan abiding by the ICJ ruling regarding whaling springs to mind) but selectively opt out of others - and to be blunt, caring for genuine refugees is rather more important than whales (don't get me wrong, I don't agree with whaling either).

Getting back to the article itself, my main criticism is that Mr Steketee quotes policy from an era where constructive solutions were actually able to be found (such as getting Vietnam to come to the table). Try telling ISIS (or whatever they style themselves now) and sundry other current bastards creating tyrannies around the world to stop persecuting their citizens and creating the "push" factors. Frankly, they are too stupid to care, they are not interested in the long-term stability of the state they are trying to control, and they no doubt see a refugee exodus as good riddance to bad rubbish.

As I have posted before on this topic, I don't think there are any easy solutions to this issue (like, derr!). Perhaps a full-scale review of the Convention really is in order, at least it would provide a global focus on this issue which the entire Western world is facing (and many developing nations, too). Whether or not it would result in international momentum on stopping the problem at the source is, well, debatable (like everything else on this forum!)

Unfortunately, sorting the wheat from the chaff is the real issue for most Australians in this whole illegal immigration debate. I support efforts to deter economic migrants from illegally (and hazardously!) entering the country, because we cannot have an unlimited quota of migrants. But as they are not easily distinguishable from genuine refugees, Governments of all stripes have to battle this issue and have tried various approaches with variable success.

Following on with the agricultural analogy, we Westerners reap what we sow. We turned our noses up at enlightened colonialism by military force (velvet glove, iron fist approach to civilisation) and now we lack the political will for sustained intervention in countries ruined by civil war. Do I think military intervention works? Not really. Do I think accepting a hundred thousand refugees works? Not really.

John51:

25 Jul 2014 10:58:00am

The trouble is Dean, that is what their actions reflect. Menzies would be shocked to see what has happened to his beloved Liberal Party. After World War 2 he was willing to open his arms and the arms of Australia with compassion. And labor went along with him.

I find it so interesting that so many of the very people who support this policy of fear and retribution are descendants of those Menzies and Labor opened their arms to and said welcome. It was Fraser, again of the Liberal Party and with support from labor who again opened their arms to the Vietnamese fleeing after the end of the Vietnam War.

But now sadly our governments and their leaders have become peddlers of fear and mistrust again. All I see in this is a repeat of another version of the White Australia policy and the fear and misinformation that underpinned it. The excuses of drownings are just that, excuses.

This Liberal party along with its previous versions under Howard have simply managed to show it can always be nastier than labor could. Those are the simple facts of the matter. And by being nastier on this issues they demonstrated that they could take votes from labor. So it has become a core policy for the simple reason that they can take votes off labor.

Tiresias:

Rabbithole:

25 Jul 2014 10:02:44am

I hope all the right wingers are prepared for the rush of climate refugees coming our way as a result of your governments climate disaster policies. There will be more hydrocarbons burnt this year than last yer and this will continue for years.

Taxes don't fix climate change or reduce the gross amount of carbon consumed, look at fuel tax its has increased the use of fuel, laws may work by the ALPLNP wont make laws there effect their economic dependency.

Get ready for the influx right winger stooges, the agreements have already been signed by the ALPLNP.

gd:

25 Jul 2014 10:22:39am

Rabbithole stop whinging about the government not solving a problem that is caused by YOUR first world lifestyle. Yep Just Living in Australia makes you a top 5% CO2 emitter. Check out this FACT that lefties and greenies hate. The roads, school, hospitals let alone your cars, big house, aircon, overseas trips....For goodness sake Christine Milne is so concerned about the issue yet can not overcome her vainity and give up make Up ( A petrochemical product produced by a dirty CO2 polluting factory for all those that didn't know )

EVAN:

25 Jul 2014 11:24:55am

"I hope all the right wingers are prepared for the rush of climate refugees coming our way "

Yeh we were supposed to have 50 million of them already where are they.Why would they want to come to Australia we are supposed to be one of the worst if not the worst effected by climate change it would be silly to come here.

EVAN:

25 Jul 2014 11:09:40am

So Oaktree should there be any controls on refugees or should anybody who wants to come just fly in.There are over 50 million refugees world wide we should be able to get them in and settled with in 12 months if we used Qantas and the RAAF.

Oaktree:

25 Jul 2014 11:46:40am

Sorry Evan, this is just hysteria. Anyone who wants to come by air does fly in already, in much greater numbers than boat attempts, apparently, but no hype about those. They are not so newsworthy and divisive for political purposes. You might consider that deeply and rationally.

Tiresias:

25 Jul 2014 2:57:22pm

So where do they get these pieces of paper if there is no access? So far the "smugglers" have provided that service. The paperless people have no choice and life is too short and these people are willing to take the risk.

But Fortress Oz is more interested in bits of paper than in people's lives.

WaterlooSunset forDDbyJuly2016:

Well, the number of arrivals by air is greater, of course. Principally because the number by boat is NIL.

Arrivals by air are easier to deal with because they have to produce identification to fly form their embarkation point.

Some, may arrive with forged documents, however that is easier to deal with, since there aren't very many that get through. Plus they would be deemed as trying to enter illegally; without a valid visa.

The fact is that it is easier to verify whether Mr and Mrs Singh are indeed real people if they come by air. Coming by boat leaves open the possibility that they are masquerading as asylum seeker (or refugees).

Now that we have stopped the boat transport, attention should be given to dealing with those that are in the camps and the camps should be disbanded. Of course they will be set up if Labor wins an election, I suppose, however The Coalition will have clean hands.

There's not much that we can do if Labor want to reopen their Kamps, excepting march in the streets !

Oaktree:

25 Jul 2014 12:14:11pm

Hi John, I don't claim policy based on emotions, but I do look at common humanity and decency and I think we are failing on those principles.

I thoroughly agree with you that conflicts have to be solved at source, and it is a great pity that the USA and therefore us, have created much of the conflict either overtly or covertly. I have often said that if the USA had supplied education rather than weapons to less developed countries, we would have a forward looking, prosperous and inventive world.

John:

25 Jul 2014 12:37:00pm

Oaktree- where do you draw the line even with common humanity and decency ? I think what we should do for every boat load that comes and turn back we should pull in equivalent amount of people languishing in refugee camps for years and years those especially who don't have funds to make a boat trip. We should also give everyone from different cultures a chance. Not just one ethinic group. any comments ?

But also remember there is the possibility of people (human nature I guess) bringing in conflicts here and or prolonging the misery back in their home country. Sri Lakan Tamils is a good example. Funds collected from the Diaspora (in most cases by threat) helped to fund the elam war for 3 decades.

Blaming USA or the west is not going to solve problems. There is world power play as we talk. All Global powers ( i don't consider OZ as a global power.. maybe an irritant for some powers) have to get together. Look at what happening in Sriya where West is not involved at all (for good reasons)

Oaktree:

25 Jul 2014 1:14:22pm

Hi John and thank you for your comments.

We are inevitably missing out on helping many deserving people. I saw a program which included a professional family caught up in the Syrian conflict whose three children's studies have lapsed as they now have no access to university.

Conflict comes with each group of people who come to our shores, but three generations later these issues fade in cultural memory. The Goulburn Valley is a case in point. We can't take everyone, but neither should we support the sort of bullying that we are allowing at present, so beloved of our jingoists.

Maybe there is a case for the UN to facilitate a procedure for allocating placements in its member countries, and a greater effort to reach more displaced people. I also think that there could be educational placements for families to live here with their students during their studies. This would be clearly on the intention of being assisted back to their home country to help redevelop it once conflict has been resolved.

With the amount of money being spent on cruel politically motivated gestures, why not put these funds into some positive initiatives?

john:

25 Jul 2014 2:17:05pm

Dear Oaktree population at large should be also prepared to accept influx of uncontrolled refugee migration. At the moment we are not highly evolved as you. You maybe willing to open your rented or borrowed home, job if you have any, share your dole and govt benefits if you don't and also access to your bank account (if you have balance left) and credit cards..

Meanwhile good luck with your efforts with UN.

people have shade because some people planted trees so you heaping cruelty and abuse at those who planted or planting trees is while pretending to high up in the morality ladder and looking down the nose at rest of us. Try a different approach and method to convince the population at large. Cheers

prison:

25 Jul 2014 2:20:12pm

Nice suggestions there Oaktree. Thats what we need, constuctive ideas not destructive judgement.

My suggestion is that we have a flexible intake via the correct channels (it would scale up/down depending on conflict areas) and that this number be completely separate from the tally of those seeking asylum via non-official channels such as via boat. This way those who have their paperwork and have been waiting for assessment legitimately are not impacted by those perceived as being 'queue jumpers'.

we can help more people without destroying australia. We can speed up assessment and make the criteria more strict for those not following the correct procedure, but we should not detain them indefinitely with no prospect of assessment and we should not label them criminals before assessment.

None of what I've said means an open door policy as some would accuse. People who are not legitimate get sent back. Those who are approved through the second stream (non-legitimate entry) have less benefits and a longer probationary period before they can become a citizen. Provide an incentive to following the correct procedure.

jim:

john:

25 Jul 2014 2:48:45pm

Answer with a doge. We hereby authorize to represent us and ask UN to facilitate a procedure for allocating placements in its member countries. The Drum forum hereby authorize you to implement your policies. Please go ahead! Comeback with results please no excuses

prison:

25 Jul 2014 2:09:40pm

John and others presently in an alternate dimension on this issue:

Allowing refugees to be assesed humanely DOES NOT = an open door policy.

IF it was an open door policy we would need to assess anyone. We could save billions on military spending and border protection, close all of the detention prisons and stop gifting military hardware to 'friends'. We really would have an influx of millions of people every year which is rediculous and not what anyone is or ever has proposed.

I personally think that we should assess them quickly wherever they are detained/picked up say within a 2 week limit and then send them back. If need by make the criteria a little more strict so that we dont get 80-90% approved as legitimate... They are people, make them sign a contract upon approval. If they break any laws or breach other conditions set then they get sent away - how hard can that be? Give all approved legitimate refugee's a probationary period of say 5-10 years before becoming eligible for citizenship.

Send the buffed guy with military tattoo's sporting a rolex back, let the innocent women and children in. how hard can it be?. Lets employ a few experts from each region of conflict to assess and verify the truth to their story. Most of the frauds could easily be screened out with the proper expertise.

john:

john:

25 Jul 2014 2:50:59pm

We hereby authorize you to implement your policies. Please go ahead implement them ASAP! You may also need to talk to UN, experts, members in other countries. Comeback with results please no excuses. Good luck!

Pete:

25 Jul 2014 12:54:24pm

This post (Oaktree) serves as a great example of what makes lefties so unbearable. The self-righteous smugness is so thick you could eat it if you didn't die of boredom first.

I often wonder if people like this don't bottle up their farts so they can let them age and mature and then get together with their mates to 1) Whinge about Abbott. 2) Compare and savour their vintage emissions.

People smuggling kills people. Many, many people. The recent murders and losses in the Mediterranean are a tragic yet compelling reason why it must be stopped at all costs.

aGuy:

25 Jul 2014 10:01:59am

RaysS, only due to lies from the left do some of the world believe that. Our refugee program remains one of the highest in the world. Now we also have decent criteria of what it takes to be a refugee so our refugee program may start to be full of actual refugees.

Kangaroo Edward:

25 Jul 2014 10:08:39am

Some people would be happy if the navy aimed their guns at a few boats and blew them out of the water, that would give the 'reffos' a bit of a run for their money and the tacit approval of a small group of flag waving nationals.

John Coochey:

25 Jul 2014 8:39:03am

Bide I am not sure what your point is but you might like to publish some figures on how much it costed us to process and maintain asylum seekers perhaps starting with the eighty per cent on welfare five years after being given residency.

din:

25 Jul 2014 9:07:44am

I think its an overstatement to say that 'eighty percent on welfare five year after given residency', as it implies that 80% are unemployed - which isn't the case

80% are getting money from the government was the original figure, ie If two people got residency 5 year ago, they both went to uni, got degrees, and landed well paying job, then had children (and don't forget - this is after 5 years so it highly likely they have settled down), then they would get child support like every other parent.

that makes them part of the 80% receiving government money you are quoting. Its ignoring how they are paying their fair share of taxes, and are a positive influence in society.

Aussie Sutra:

25 Jul 2014 9:38:35am

Actually, Australia needs to perhaps stop resettling asylum seekers. I cannot fathom that the government treats normal Aussies like second class citizens in a system that makes foreigners, many of who lied through their teeth to gain access, some kind of first class citizen who are handed everything in life for free. Perhaps some of our young Aussies would like a start in life that involves free housing or an interest free mortgage they choose to buy, free education and support from the government for as long as they choose to study, interest free business loans if they choose to start a business, and a nice quick start in life with a full package of household furniture and appliances. I know it would have made my life a lot easier to be treated in the first class set.

Aussie Sutra:

Chris :

25 Jul 2014 1:59:23pm

We need to stick to our proper immigration policy of getting skilled like minded people who can fully assimilate into our country.All those ILLEGAL immigrants should be reurned to their countries off origin as son as possible and this should be done without going through some costly and time wasting exercise as we are doing at present -

Tiresias:

25 Jul 2014 3:07:09pm

Ah, yes, Aussie Sutra. The politics of envy.

The refugees who have been taken in are not allowed to work. How do they survive?

They will reward us with contribution to our economy into the future. This has been shown to be true now for generations of immigrants from around the world. It is how Oz has developed for some 50-60 thousand years.

Aussie Sutra:

25 Jul 2014 3:31:18pm

We have to get past this lie that every immigrant is of magical benefit to our country. They are not. Every immigrant costs us millions and our lifestyle is collapsing under the weight of having to pay their way, whether they are legal or illegal, 457s, asylum seekers, refugees, or legal immigrants. However refugees are treated like first class citizens with a lifetime of freebies that the second class natural born Aussie will never receive. This needs to stop or it needs to be EQUALISED.

JohnC:

25 Jul 2014 9:48:39am

@din:The cost of welfare payments to refugees, even if it is 80%, is not a huge dead end cost to the taxpayer as the money expended is almost totally re-channelled to the economy through the purchase of goods and services. Business and service providers benefit and their resulting increased profitability results in higher return to the treasury via company tax. Remember the Ken Henry sponsored stimulus measures when we all received $900 cheques during the GFC? Money is made round to go round.

leafygreens:

Its not all channelled back into the economy here, a significant proportion of it goes overseas. Resettlement areas quickly grow a western union shop for that very reason.

If the family ponies up 15K+ to get you here, you are expected to send money home, that is part of the obligation.

Some fall into a community that is far from safe, and the 'old' ways continue. Immigration & centerlink 'brokers', dodgey employment arrangements, a hidden economy.. Stuff between preying on their fellow countrymen and doing it the wasy it was done at home (cash, no taxes, ignore the rules..)

Some are very grateful for the opportunity being here gives them, but it may not be the sort of opportunity the rose cloured glasses brigade is imagining.

What do you do with a 'traumatised' 17 year old 'boy' who solves all his issues with violence & deceit and treats female teachers & students inappropriately? Wait. He may not be a 'refugee' ....we can't even get it right for the homebred ones.

These people are just people.. with all the range of behaviours that come with it. They are not saints, anymore than they are demons, but all the time pro settlement for all comers people push the image of the desperate- helpless- sainted- asylum seeker, they leave no room for reasoned discussion about appropriate behaviours and integration, and just widen the divide.

John Coochey:

OverIt:

25 Jul 2014 6:53:07pm

"If two people got residency 5 year ago, they both went to uni, got degrees, and landed well paying job, then had children (and don't forget - this is after 5 years so it highly likely they have settled down), then they would get child support like every other parent."

Din, you cannot be serious. IF. Big word, and unfortunately not one you have provided anything other than your own theory on.

You seem quite prepared to believe that the more likely scenario is that they go to uni, get a degree and get a high paying job. Yup, highly likely to land a high paying job immediately after getting a degree - just ask all those Australians with degrees who are still actively seeking any type of job, let alone in their field of study, months or years after completing their degree.

So, according to you, they are productive members of society, only receiving benefits to supplement their high paying jobs in order to help support the children they have managed to produce while studying and working.

I'll have what you're having!

You might also want to take a look at the very high percentage of asylum speakers who don't actually speak English after five years. Kind of makes it hard to get a degree or land a well paying job, wouldn't you say?

Oh, and every other parent doesn't get child support. Lots of us support our own kids with no help from the government.

bide and fecht:

25 Jul 2014 9:36:39am

Publish figures? I didn't quote any......Don't have to.....Chances are good that if you look at the threat level versus the level of resources stacked against that threat that you'll figure it out.....But 80% is an interesting figure, perhaps you'd like to substanciate it yourself?

EMH:

25 Jul 2014 9:45:57am

There may well be an avalanche of refugees and asylum seekers wanting to escape war, despotism and worse but it is not aimed at Australia. Australia is a long, long way from the countries these people are coming from and in fact most seeking refuge in Australia come from nearby countries, Myanmar, Sri Lanka. The numbers coming to Australia from the northern hemisphere are much smaller. Australia will never be overwhelmed by your "avalanche", no matter how free and fair, or cruel and prejudicial Australian policy may become.

I prefer Australia's traditional values of a fair go, of offering a helping hand, wherever we may be able.

EMH:

25 Jul 2014 1:34:57pm

One boat, sent to Sri Lanka by the Australian government. It means nothing compared to all the boats sent to Nauru and Manus.

Iran is a pretty nasty place in which to live with religious bigots imposing cruel and ancient policies on the people. And we don't get that many from Iraq. In 2012-13 a total of 471 visas were granted for Iraqis in Australia. Not really "...so many..."

This month 75,000 asylum seekers arrived in Italy. I don't know where they originated but this clearly makes nonsense of your claim that "Australia is a top pick of countries when people choose to resettle."

Aussie Sutra:

Coogera:

25 Jul 2014 10:58:11am

EMH

I particularly believe in a fair go and that means providing the maximum assistance to refugees in the world. These are the ones in refugee camps. This means supporting the most needy not pandering to the ones who arrive via human traffickers.

EMH:

25 Jul 2014 1:38:16pm

Refugees in camps are indistinguishable from refugees in camps! Those coming to Australia mostly come from camps in Malaysia, Indonesia and Myanmar. What on earth do you think a refugee camp is? You must have some weird understanding of what it means.

Human traffickers are those who buy women and men and sell them into slavery and prostitution. You probably meant people smugglers. When people smugglers own the only means of transport what do you expect asylum seekers to do? Fly?

Ffejjie:

25 Jul 2014 1:08:36pm

Funny you should mention the good old Aussie 'fair go' EMH.

I agree with you we should choose the number of refugees we can comfortably resettle and then go and select that number based on a set of criteria. Things like; most need, skills and geographical proximity might be included.

The other choice is selection based on who can afford several thousand dollars to get on a boat and rock up on our doorstep.

ScottBE:

25 Jul 2014 1:12:20pm

BnF... I quite agree.

There is sufficient evidence that the LNP policy is aimed at destroying innocent lives "for the greater good" of stopping the boats. This is entirely inappropriate and, as Mike makes clear above, is unnecessary.

Asylum seekers are not people smugglers. Hurting these people does nothing to "dismantle the business model" of people smugglers.

As Malcolm Fraser did, we need to accept more asylum seekers from Indonesia and to transport them in a safe manner from Indonesia. This is a more effective and efficient method for stopping the boats.

mike:

EvilPundit:

25 Jul 2014 8:15:02am

It is a good policy, and it works. That is the real reason why the open borders advocates hate it.

Stopping the boats has proven once and for all that the "push factors" theory is a myth. They are not being forced to come to Australia - they are choosing to do so as a loophole to get past our immigration laws.

GRF:

Completely correct, John. And the author of this piece, by claiming equal weight to the response of Labor and the Liberals, tells us straight away that he is not an honest analyst.

For some reason these 'refugee advocates' just don't seem to get it; 1,200 dead and possibly more - all under Labor's incoherent and half-hearted atttempt to placate various voting blocks. The liberals simply saw evil and stopped it.

The Real Johno:

25 Jul 2014 8:59:17am

SHY and her likes dont want to get it. They are not interested in common sense. The previous Labor Foreign Minister Bob Carr went so far as to indicate that the current lot of Asylum Seekers are seeking economic benefits - not fear of persecution.

Mark James:

25 Jul 2014 10:57:09am

john1, there's no evidence that Howard introduced the Pacific Solution because he was concerned about people drowning at sea. All the rhetoric at the time was designed for political advantage, to wedge Labor, and to play the 'invasion' fear card for political purposes.

As I pointed out, stopping deaths at sea in our neighbourhood does absolutely nothing to address the problem beyond handballing it to some other region. It is a political fix, not a solution.

SVJ:

25 Jul 2014 12:11:40pm

Mark,

And Gillard proposed Indonesia, Malaysia purely out of concern for those risking their lives (drowning) under the ALP's open border policy. You've run out of straws, what's the next argument (oh that's right....Howard and Bush started the wars that created the whole mess).

How about all you guys get together and decide what moral outrage is the most significant for you to bleat on about, Climate, Refugees, $7 for doctors.....

john1:

"john1, there's no evidence that Howard introduced the Pacific Solution"

Is whether it was or wasn't actually relevant?

"All the rhetoric at the time was designed for political advantage"

If there is no evidence for concern over drownings then i can say you have no evidence for your assertion either.

But again, is it relevant..........results are relevant are they not.

"As I pointed out, stopping deaths at sea in our neighbourhood does absolutely nothing to address the problem beyond handballing it to some other region. It is a political fix, not a solution"

And I am going to point out to you that this is YOUR OPINION, nothing else. You are actually arguing a different problem. You want to address the world refugee problem. That's not what this policy is about. This policy is about stopping people illegally entering our country by boat.

Mark James:

john, you made the point that Howard introduced the Pacific Solution to stop people drowning at sea so, besides that being simply your opinion, it was obviously an opinion that was relevant to you.

As far as Howard's rhetoric on asylum seekers being a political advantage, the Coalition have admitted as such by their actions (continued demonisation and dog-whistling), and by the fact that a key Liberal Party strategist told US diplomats in 2009 that the issue of asylum seekers was "fantastic" for the Coalition and "the more boats that come the better".

As for what the problem is - if it is simply about stopping asylum seekers arriving by boat in Australia, then that problem is being resolved.

However, that in itself makes dishonest the claim that the problem being addressed is that people are drowning at sea (they are still drowning, just somewhere else).

It also raises a different problem as to how we can continue both the draconian policies of turning back asylum seekers with our continued signatory of the UN Refugee Convention.

And it raises a moral quandry in which we have to ask ourselves if the ends justify the means.

Mark James:

Fair enough, Zing, but if we'd implemented the proposals of the Houston panel, all the issues you highlighted would now be irrelevant.

The people swap component would have taken what Abbott likes to call the "sugar off the table", so:

1. The numbers of arrivals would be down2. We choose how many to take because we take them from a holding country. 3. Those who arrive are sent to a holding country until processed and assessed.

That is my concrete answer. I don't like it, but it's better than what we've got. And it's also one way to extract the poison from the debate until such time we can actually revisit the issue again in a reasonable and adult manner.

John51:

25 Jul 2014 11:11:00am

Oh, please GRF stop using the excuse of drownings for this very nasty vindictive policy. It is an excuse and nothing else to try and excuse the nastiness of the policy. "The liberals simply saw evil and stopped it". No, the truth is the liberals saw a way to take votes from labor on this issue by being nastier than labor could.

And in the process they are quite happy to do damage to our democracy by treating Parliament with contempt through the excuse of 'Operational Matters'. There seems to be no concern about the damage to our democracy as long as they win and hold power on this issue.

It seems neither this government nor many of its supporters understand or care that it is Parliament that the people elect. It is not government or any political party. That contains a very crucial fact. And that is the government of the day must be answerable to Parliament and through Parliament to the people. Those are very simple but crucial facts that underpin our democracy.

Lawrence of Bavaria:

25 Jul 2014 11:29:05am

Why don't we call a spade a spade, GRF ? The Howard, the Labor and the Abbott Government couldn't/don't give a hoot about drowning asylum seekers. It only became fashionable pretending to care about their wellbeing after the Christmas Island drownings that gave a face to formerly faceless people. The mock welfare of and the duty of care for asylum seekers has been used ever since to justify harsher and harsher measures to deter them. A condescending, patronising way of faux concern that disguises a more and more ruthless approach. Of course the parties would never admit that publicly. But is there any greater deterrent than possible death ? John Howard and Philipp Ruddock created a video distributed in asylum seeker's countries of origin titled "Don't take the risk". It contained crocodiles, venomous snakes and spiders and other rubbish to deter people from trying to reach Australia. Every boat that didn't make it was a gift to their course. And, sadly, it is to this day. Cynical ? Yes. Despicable ? Yes. Understandable, excusable ? No. We are adults, dear politicians, tell us what your position is and we will form our own opinion. But stop treating us like children. Especially not like children overboard.

SVJ:

Lawrence of Bavaria:

25 Jul 2014 12:46:41pm

It's a (tragic) game of numbers, SVJ. The more people die attempting the trip the less will try. At the moment way more boat refugees make it than not. That's what people smugglers sell - the possibility of making it. Why is almost no-one trying to come during monsoon season ? Because the chance of not making it is too high. But every death at sea must create doubt. How much we will never know. My point was: The politicians' crocodile tears are just that.

the yank:

It has not stopped the boats hence why we have 153 people sitting on an Australian navy ship.

It is NOT illegal to seek asylum. This nonsense pushed by the LNP is childish and if we are ever to get a humane and adult approach to this issue that thought has got to stop.

People have stopped drowning that is correct and if that were the only issue then it would be a good thing but it isn't.

Because you don't see what is happening to these people doesn't mean somewhere else they aren't also dying. Pushing the problem onto other countries less able to deal with the situation is again childish approach.

we are disgusted by the treatment of our dead in the Ukraine but at the same time we are treating living people in a more brutal inhumane manner.

Before you state it I am not backing the approach of any other party I thin k they are all wrong. I wait to see the report on how we might better deal with this issue. I would then demand that all parties get off their high horses and talk other approaches thoroughly.

Mike:

SVJ:

25 Jul 2014 12:23:13pm

Mike,

Seriously....if the Convention told you you should wear red undies on your head would you???? Grow up and understand that every country has a right to protect it's sovereignty, the convention is not an open door to try and land anywhere you think there is a better life, opportunity.

the yank:

Aussie Sutra:

25 Jul 2014 4:02:45pm

Australia over-delivers on the refugee convention. All we need to do is provide temporary accommodation for legitimate refugees and then return them to their nation as soon as possible. That's what the convention asks. We do so much more by offering refugees a path to first class citizenship in a system in which natural born Australians are second class citizens.

the yank:

a happy little debunker:

25 Jul 2014 9:22:27am

But it is appropriate to describe these people as illegal immigrants, NO amount of 'thought' control will change that!

We are providing these 'illegals' with a solution that meets our obligatons & meets the needs of a refugee & destroys the business model of the people smugglers - but may not fit the 'wants' of an economic migrant.

It is a case of WIN, WIN, WIN & Lose.

A genuine refugee would be pleased that we are helping to get them resettled in another country where they will not be persecuted, even if that takes time.

Genuine refugees would not bypass the assistance offered by the UNHCR & would not flee safe havens like Indonesia and India (because those countries are not persecuting them).

Economic migrants are gaming the system, & as a matter of principal - we should never allow illegal immigrants to play games at our expense.

whohasthefish:

Professor Andreas Schloenhardt, from the University of Queensland law school took a similar view, saying "the terms 'asylum seeker' and 'illegal' should not be used together or in the same sentence".

Ellen Hansen from the Canberra office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees told ABC Fact Check that "the term 'illegal' is not one that UNHCR uses or encourages the use of in relation to refugees or asylum-seekers arriving without a visa".

Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country.

That is the case even though these people have not committed any crime, nor broken any Australian or international law.

Source, ABC Fact check.

Your use of the term, like the Governments, is misleading and a strawman argument that means absolutely nothing. It is purely semantic name calling to infer these people have broken laws when in fact no laws have been broken.

Misleading and dishonest propaganda for political purposes.

Seems some can't see past their own partisan cheer squad mentality. You have nothing to offer the debate other than falsehoods so go away.

harry:

the yank:

25 Jul 2014 9:34:26am

"A refugee is a person who is outside their home country because they have suffered (or feared) persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or because they are a member of a persecuted social category of persons or because they are fleeing a war. Such a person may be called an 'asylum seeker' until recognized by the state where they make a claim"

sidlaw:

25 Jul 2014 1:00:57pm

the yank,If they are genuine refugees and have the cash to pay the people smugglers, why do they not get on a plane and come here with their papers and claim asylum? I hope you agree it would be much cheaper and safer to do this.The reason they don't do it is because they are economic migrants. Carr and others agreed with this.It is a terrible problem that we alone can't fix, so we have a quota. We should take the most needy and as far as I'm concerned they are in UNHCR camps and sadly many have been there for years. If we don't have deterrents they will come in the millions and this is not something we can support.

spacey 101:

25 Jul 2014 3:37:33pm

Quite honestly this is one of the most nonsensical arguments commonly told about those seeking asylum... Lets imagine you are a Hazara from Afghanistan, or closer to home a Karen from Burma or a Tamil from Sri Lanka. You need to flee. What's the first thing you get rid of?? Yep,any ID that marks you as any of the above. To be caught with these documents means absolute and certain detention. Without them at least you have the chance to bluff or bribe your way out. Like any ethnic group our names give us away. If your named Smith, your most likely Anglo Saxon. Postecoglou, your most likely Greek. Levi, Jewish; etc etc... In Australia alone you will hear hundreds of stories of Jews and Poles etc fleeing Nazi occupation, and the first thing they did was lose their documents. Why would you keep the one thing that identifies you as a target?????

CM:

25 Jul 2014 5:37:20pm

Sidlaw while I agree this is a terrible problem, we need to be clear about the situation in every detail. These people need a VISA to get on a plane and usually they can't get one simply because they come from Country X which is judged economically disadvantaged and/or is in turmoil. Before granting most temporary visas, our government seeks to reassure itself that the applicant will have reasons not to "overstay" or apply for a Protection Visa while here, and various factors such as conditions in the country of citizenship/usual residence are taken into account to this end.

the yank:

25 Jul 2014 9:36:25am

Further to my previous post ...

Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." The United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees guides national legislation concerning political asylum.

rudski:

the yank:

25 Jul 2014 3:44:36pm

"It has not been easy for organised world opinion in the United Nations or elsewhere to act directly in respect of some of the dreadful events which have driven so many people from their own homes ... ask Menzies

James:

25 Jul 2014 12:59:47pm

Yes yank, and the convention also states that they must apply for asylum in the first country that it is safe to do so. This intent to the convention has been ratified in almost every signiture country, and is the foundation of several internationl conventions including most notibly the Dublin II convention in the EU.

Zing:

25 Jul 2014 12:29:22pm

Yank.

The boat people arrive from transit countries such as Indonesia, Pakistan, India and Malaysia. The moment they entered those countries, they have escaped persecution. The moment they started country shopping, they ceased to be refugees as far as the convention is concerned.

By the time they come to Australia to apply for asylum, they're no longer qualified to receive it. That is the reason we can assume boat people are not genuine and turn them back. Plane arrivals succeed only because they came directly from a country where they were being persecuted.

In the past, we only detained boat people and assessed them as genuine because successive governments lacked the political will to send them back to Indonesia. We were assessing people as genuine when they were not, because deporting them was too much trouble. Both Labor and the Coalition were guilty of that.

Now the mainstream parties have realised that the boat numbers are growing, and we no longer have the luxury of pretending that frauds are genuine. This leaves people like you confused, since you can't understand why "genuine" boat people are suddenly being turned away.

Tim P:

25 Jul 2014 12:28:26pm

John1You are conflating arrival in a country for the purposes of claiming asylum with immigration, surely.

If a person enters a country, regardless of documentation, to claim asylum they are accorded the legal status of asylum seeker under the UN Conventions. Once their claims are assessed they are issued visas and may then be eligible for settlement. The result being that they have legally migrated to Australia by participating in a legal process.

If they do all that but are found not to be refugees and are denied visas then they are deported. You could argue that they have tried to ender under false pretences. Illegal? Well, certainly not permitted by law.

If they sneak in at night and disappear into the slums, bypassing the legal channels of admittance or if they fly into Tullamarine and disappear into the orchards and cane fields for the next 20 years then they are illegal immigrants.

John51:

25 Jul 2014 11:22:37am

Sadly Yank, it seems this government and a lot of this supporters simply don't care about the Refugee Convention. Is it not strange how it was their so called liberal party hero Menzies who signed that convention.

Is it not also strange that it was their liberal party hero Menzies, along with labor, who went against the prevailing public opinion to bring our a whole lot of refugees. How things have changed in the liberal party.

Fraser who did the same as Menzies by accepting a whole lot of refugees after the Vietnam does not even recognise the liberal party he once belonged to and led. How the world has changed when two previous liberal party prime ministers would not now recognise the party they once led.

the yank:

spacey 101:

25 Jul 2014 4:05:08pm

I also do not understand how people feign ignorance of when laws are 'trumped' by other laws. For example taking a human life is illegal. But taking a life in self defense is lawful. One law has trumped another. For me what I find mist disturbing is that no matter which side of the political divide you sit, surely you want your government to act lawfully, especially when that government is in effect acting in our names.

Paul01:

25 Jul 2014 9:57:59am

Where is here EP? If the boat did not get here then the Australian government is guilty of piracy and illegally detaining people against their will.

I know Tony hasn't had many wins but you can't claim this as a win when asylum seekers are sitting on an Australian ship. If they are illegals then charge them and lock them up in an Australian prison.

Do you guys realise that the vast majority of asylum seekers still arrive by air?

Both sides of politics are guilty of using this issue for political gain, it is a shame that no one has the values of Fraser, Whitlam and Hayden who took the politics of silly slogans out of the debate and did the right thing.

prison:

Increase our intake to say 20,000 via legitimate chanels and another 5000 via non-legitimate chanels but provide an incentive to following the correct procedure. For example:

If you wait your turn in an approved UN camp with the correct paperwork, your assessment will be quick and you will have a shorter probationary period before you can legitimatly become an Australian Citizen. If you pay a people smuggler to get on a boat, you may be legitimate but you will get a different visa once approved where you may have a 5-10 year probation and instantly send back if you break the law.

People need to be more constructive rather than simply parroting the usual anti-refugee mantra's. It is people like John1 who need to "get in the real world" in my opinion.

Paul01:

25 Jul 2014 2:53:48pm

We could start with the over 100,000 457 visa holders who are robbing young Australians of work and then move on to the over 200,000 student visas who also have limited work rights before moving onto the immigrants we deem "acceptable" that also number in the hundreds of thousands each year.

It that enough numbers for you John?

How did you get to be an Australian John? Born here? What of your parents or their parents? How far back did your forebears arrive here by boat?

aGuy:

25 Jul 2014 10:07:39am

yank, it is illegal to lie about claiming asylum. This is what many do. Under the ALP we only needed to be 10% certain that they where telling the truth. So many more than likely liars got it when people who had been waiting for a decade in UN camps didnt even get assessed.

No one from the left is able to explain how that is humane. At least with warped logic they can justify all the drownings their approach caused.

Dave:

"Under the ALP we only needed to be 10% certain that they where telling the truth."

Absolute rot. We needed to be 100% certain that they were at reasonable risk of harm, which was defined as a 10% probability. That's now been redefined as 50%, "more likely than not" at risk of harm.

I notice you are happy to misrepresent the ALP but don't attempt to make the claim that under the Liberal Government people will be accepted as refugees if we're 50% certain they are telling the truth, which is the obvious implication from your statement. Partisan much?

aGuy:

25 Jul 2014 11:56:10am

There is no 100% in the worldStill, you are advocating filling limited positions with people that have next to no chance of being wrongly persecuted at the expense of those that are more certain if they return and have waited longer.

Dave:

25 Jul 2014 12:14:18pm

"Still, you are advocating filling limited positions with people that have next to no chance of being wrongly persecuted at the expense of those that are more certain if they return and have waited longer."

You're loving the misrepresentations today aGuy. I have advocated nothing. I have observed that the test has changed. The test is the same for boat arrivals as for refugees in camps. How therefore can you possibly conclude that one group has "next to no chance" of persecution while the other is "more certain" when both groups are subjected to the same tests, some are found to be "legitimate" refugees and others are found to not have a claim. Tell us what evidence you are basing your claims on, because it really looks like you're just making everything up.

Dave:

aGuy:

25 Jul 2014 1:55:15pm

The arrivals in Australia where met with a 10% test and assessed first.

Surely the arrivals by boat and plane believe they will get some advantage over UN camps. If not they would certainly avoid paying people smugglers. The fact that the advantage comes in the form of shorter wait times and better facilities is evident by the numbers and photos of UN refugee camps.

I dont blame any person for trying to catch a boat to Australia under Greens or ALP because it makes sense. What I blame is the weak and harmful approach supported by refugee advocates who ignore the near 50 Million UN refugees, the poorest refugees and the refugees that can not leave the country in which the suffer persecution.

Simply by arriving in Australia's territory there is a demonstration of capacity that many do not have. This should make them less worthy on an application process. Still they will be pushed to the front of the line ahead of all the 50 Million in UN camps.

Dave:

25 Jul 2014 2:29:31pm

"The arrivals in Australia where met with a 10% test and assessed first. "

The asylum seekers in UN camps had to meet precisely the same standard. Just because you are in a UN camp does not, as your posts seem to presume, mean you qualify for resettlement in Australia. Many, many refugees are able to return safely to their homeland when the war or whatever other event made them refugees ceases. The process of seeking asylum in a resettlement country from a refugee camp is not automatic, as your constant differentiating between boat arrivals and resettled camp residents clearly suggests.

I understand where you're coming from about people in camps having awfully long delays and, in many cases, being worthy of resettlement to Australia. I just don't get why you need to make up so many fabricated "facts" in trying to get your point across.

struckdumb:

25 Jul 2014 10:15:16am

Refugees from Kosovo were accepted here during the Balkans War, and returned to their homeland once it was deemed safe. If they wanted to stay here, they had to go home and apply to come here through official channels. This was clearly undertood by those who came here. If those conditions are imposed on boat arrivals, it takes away the pull factor, and also creates conditions where people can return to their home countries and help re-establish law and order in whatever form they prefer. It gives them a say in their own futures. It also takes away any motivation for economic refugees to make the journey; the quicker they go home the quicker they can apply to come here through regular channels, and re-unites refugees with their familes in their own countries, without treating them like criminals when they get here. There will always be those who object because they feel entitled to share our life-style and know they will not be accepted, but I seem to remember that education was provided for the Kosovo refugees, I did a course with some Kosovan adults, and attempts were made to interrupt their lives as little as possible and the children went to class. That gave the men a chance to improve their skills and chances for permanent settlement here, provided they went home first.The Kosovan refugees were still housed in barracks and camps, it needed large scale accomodation, but they were treated with respect and humanity. A scheme such as this would allow those on Manus and Nauru to learn skills and give them something to do instead of sitting around in the heat feeling they have been ripped off and getting resentful; they would be treated with respect, which is very important; and they would learn that they have to earn the right to stay here. They can only stay as long as their is fighting in their homeland. It also gives the government a chance to acclimatise the would-be immigrants to the Australian way of life and thinking, as well as weeding out the troublemakers.Its not ideal, no solution is, and it will not satisfy everyone, there will always be people who want to stay and by-pass official avenues of immigration, but it gives arrivals hope and choice, something they do not have at the moment.

Pete:

25 Jul 2014 11:06:40am

Not a bad solution, but I can see one major problem. The Kosovars were returning to a previously stable country (relatively speaking), temporarily wrecked by war. The refugees we are getting now from are not, in the majority of cases fleeing temporary war conditions: most are fleeing failed or failing states where there is little hope of conditions improving. To think they might freely go back home and apply to live in Australia is a bit unrealistic. I think we either take them permanently, or not at all. The current process where they are locked up indefinitely on pacific islands is cruel, as false hope always is. They should be deported as quickly as possible, and we should agitate to remove whatever parts of the UN Convention force us to take people who come by boat, particularly when there are so many in UN camps who don't get a look in. In the case of the recent Tamils who left India, it's bizarre that they're even still being considered as possible refugees, unless of course you think the entire population of Tamil Nadu has a right to migrate to Australia. This alone suggests the law is currently an ass, with the High Court telling us, under current obligations that we can't repatriate these people immediately.

damon:

25 Jul 2014 1:41:43pm

yank, the only reason the boat people complain they are being treated 'inhumanely' is because they were sold a bill of goods by the people smugglers, and they think they are not getting what they paid for.

the yank:

damon:

Belinda:

25 Jul 2014 8:38:10am

If there is one policy of Abbotts Australians support it is his border protection policy. It works, it saves lives and less boat people means more suffering refugees in camps a quicker settlement in Australia.

Duniya:

big joe:

25 Jul 2014 9:08:32am

Duniya, "Illegal immigrators?(is that a real word) are legal asylum seekers"? Considering that more than half are economic immigrants and have no claim to genuine refugee status your post is incorrect.

sidlaw:

Tom:

Yes it has stopped the boats, but at what cost? It is like deciding to cut road accidents by locking up all drivers in overseas camps. Or deciding to protect children by keeping them locked up.

There are better ways to 'stop the boats', like accepting more people through the UN channels (this would even cost much less than locking people up), by helping countries of origin (rather than cutting foreign aid) or even by the Clive Palmer solution of flying refugees here.

These people are desperate. If I was desperate I would probably get on a boat as well. Our policies are inhumane. It is wrong to be inhumane, and you cannot justify inhumanity as avoiding other inhumanity.

john1:

Australian HUBRIS:

25 Jul 2014 8:48:59am

John,

I think the idea that Australia has stopped the boats is hubris. And it should be openly recognised as such. The truth is we can't stop the boats, we can't stop Irregular Maritime Arrivals and we can't stop the drownings.

The boats will keep probing, searching, looking for a way into Australia. And people will continue to put their lives at risk in dangerous boats and unfortunately as a result people will continue to drown.

In truth, all Australia can do at best, is significantly reduce the lives lost at sea, significantly reduce the number of people putting their lives at risk in trying to get to Australia in dangerous boats, significantly reduce the number of people putting themselves into debt bondage with the People Smugglers by trying to get to Australia, significantly reduce the takeover of Australia's honourable humanitarian immigration program by the People Smugglers and significantly reduce the extreme pressure put on our defence force rescue services and importantly their people.

MDG:

Alpo:

25 Jul 2014 9:02:15am

FALSE,The boats keep coming, in fact a group of Sri Lankan asylum seekers is currently being held in limbo at sea. Seeking asylum is NOT illegal. We have no idea whether People are dying or not.... it's an operational matter, therefore no information flows to the People of Australia from this Government of Liars.... That to me is a very bad policy....

Aussie Sutra:

mortan:

25 Jul 2014 9:44:49am

Alpo: I may be wrong here but I was under the impression a refugee seeking asylum should seek asylum at the first country that can offer it. It appears these asylum seekers as you refer to them have passed many countries that could have offered asylum yet you say that is legal.

big joe:

Coogera:

25 Jul 2014 11:02:53am

Alpo

The issue is not one of boats coming but of boats arriving. The government has been highly successful in this but certainly needs tougher more draconian measures to completely shut down human trafficker trade.

John Bentley:

25 Jul 2014 9:08:44am

The facts are the policy hasn't stopped the boats as evidenced by the fact that 157 are illegally imprisoned on an Australian vessel on the high seas.

They haven't stopped illegal immigrants as evidenced by the fact that the department of immigration estimates about 40,000 people arriving at various airports with legitimate visas don't leave the country when the visas expire. These are your true illegal immigrants not asylum seekers.

Australia may have stopped the drownings but at what cost?Death and injury in Australian detention camps in other countries. Years of misery, poverty and hopelessness in concentration camps on Australian soil.

A good policy? I don't think so when it is trashing Australia's international reputation.

prison:

Its not illegal to enter our territory if you are seeking asylum. They are classified 'non-citizens' prior to assessment.

The term illegal was removed from our laws in the 1980's, only to be returned into webpage headings since the Liberals came to power to support their ideological crusade against refugees/foreigners because they cost some money initially and look different.

aGuy:

25 Jul 2014 10:12:58am

The UN camps are far less resourced. Shouldnt we try are remove people who have been there longer first?

Its strange I never hear about UN refugee camp residents performing self harm. Why is that? Mr Lake has come closest to the explanation with his concern that refugee advocates where encouraging self harm.

Anita:

25 Jul 2014 10:33:25am

Interesting how the refugee advocates in Australia don't advocate for the refuggees in camps, only the one's paying people smugglers.I'd like to see a story about the refugees whho are rotting in camps and keep getting pushed back because of cashed up boat people taking their places.Where are you refugee advocates on this issue.

BJA:

It doesn't begin to address anything except your own feelings. It would eg. pander to feelings generated by ignorant racism and xenophobia.

Try putting yourself in the position of those who apparently hurt your feelings by being so thoughtless as to get drowned off the Australian coast and forcing on you the knowledge of it and you may see things differently.

You may even get around to wondering why someone would take a chance on they and their children drowning.

aGuy:

25 Jul 2014 10:15:39am

BJA, try actually trying to debate instead of giving out labels. If you are keen to put yourself in peoples shoes try this scenario

You fled Libya and are in a UN refugee camp. You have been there for six years without any country assessing you. Richer people from Iran and SriLanka manage to pay criminals to jump ahead when they have not even been waiting for a year.

There is still no education for your children, one doctor per thousand at best and you are living in a tent.

What do you believe your impression of Australian boat arrivals would be? (understanding that you would lack TV and Internet to hear about it in the first place which we provide to boat arrivals)

Dove:

25 Jul 2014 10:35:22am

The rich people coming from Iran would be a far better class of refugee than the Libyian one sitting in a tent for six years. Look at the initiative, the pluck, the likelihood of replicating their wealth right here. It's positively entrepreneurial. Do you want your refugees on welfare or in business? What a strange leftists view to have

BJA:

25 Jul 2014 10:46:11am

I didn't generate new labels for anyone. I just pointed out that the author of what I replied to had labelled himself - very effectively.

As for what would I do under the circumstances you describe? (It sounds remarkably like circumstances in which I have lived in Australia - no schooling for my children, living in a tent, to all functional purposes no medical care). Perhaps I'd cut the throat of the first rich person I came across and go looking for a cut-price people smuggler. I'm not at all sure, but why do you imagine that I would feel differently about those with money to pay a people smuggler than I now feel about those with un-necessary and unusable wealth wasting squillions while others don't have the necessities of a decent life?

(By the way I do have the necessities of a decent life, and I don't feel the slightest twinge of the "envy" that Mr Howard used talk about. Contempt? Yes, in some cases. Annoyance at wasted human opportunities? Very much so. Exasperation at stupidity? Yes lots of that, But envy? What is there to envy?).

aGuy:

25 Jul 2014 12:16:21pm

BJA, by accepting boat arrivals, you are effectively pushing back people in UN camps. The fact that you believe your actions may include murder will hardly help the people in lands where they fear persecution. They would then need to fear their fellow refugees.

Its not making the situation better. Supporting boat arrivals provides funds to criminal group (which may also perform murder) and believe you would kill in that situation adds a double whammy. If this is what Australian policy ends up supporting, the policy is horrendous. This was effectively the ALP policy as UN camps acceptance dropped to the lowest in over a decade.

There is alot of good to be done by refusing any boat or plane arrival.

Dove:

Pete:

25 Jul 2014 11:18:17am

You're right: there wouldn't be as much consternation if these people were white. But this is not racism, it's 'culturalism': the unwillingess to take refugees is related to the objection to immigration from failed states, particularly where that failure is systemic (not war driven), associated with religious intolerance, and 'top-to-bottom' ie. the state has almost no uncorrupted institutions. People also feel less obligation to those not their 'kin'. Calling this 'racism' is simplistic: there is an association with 'race', but the cause has little to do with race, and has more to do with a perception of behaviour and values, and an ability to integrate.

Patrick:

mortan:

25 Jul 2014 10:51:47am

Patrick: Many are critical of the Australian government for their policy I just wonder how many asylum seekers arrive by wooden boat in China. Indonesia or even Japan for that matter. What is their policy does anyone know?

MK:

25 Jul 2014 9:36:34am

A good policy to you,Let's see Stopped the Boats? umm i'm going to go with Falsealthough you didn't really define what you were stopping the boats doingif you meant stop the boat attempting to come then FALSE

TrevorN:

25 Jul 2014 9:38:15am

JC, I do not think that you even took the time to read this article before you set off on your rant. The author clearly said that the current 'stop the boats' campaign is working BUT there are alternatives which may be fairer.

The fact is that there are some 50 million refugees on the planet at this time. Recently Italy picked 1,500 refugees out of leaky boats in the Mediterranean in one week. They have processed some 60,000 refugees in the last six months. That's just one example of the level of refugee movement happening world wide.

The turn back, lock up and repatriate polices of both the ALP and LNP parties do work but they do in no way address the real problems the world is facing. Jordan has over 1 million refugees from neighbouring countries. They are a poor nation with few resources, not even enough surface water to provide for their own needs let alone an influx of a million more people, but they get on with it.

We sit here in a land of plenty and whinge and whine when we get proportionally few of these unfortunate people adrift and looking for a safe place to live. We don't have a refugee problem; we have a problem with our selfish perspectives.

The author clearly said there were other ways to deal fairly with our international obligations and being part of the world community: we should be able to, at least, sit down and rationally look at any unprejudiced and reasonable suggestion as to how we might be able to do that.

John Coochey:

25 Jul 2014 11:21:03am

So I will ask the question that I have never had answered. Taking your figure of 50 million refugees set whatever level of settlement in Australia you like by any means of arrival what do you do when that quota is filled and another boat arrives?

TrevorN:

Australia (in 2009) ranked no 235 (out of 241) in the world for population density. We have 3.1 people per sq K;

no 1 is Macau with 18,534 people per sq k;

Indonesia runs at 121 per sq k;

tiny UK possession the island of Montserrat ranks about half way on the list at 58 people per sq k.

How many more people can we take? I don't know but based on the above surely we could take a few more ON OUR OWN TERMS without too much trouble. Stop the hysteria and hyperventilating, sit down and think logically about it.

Aussie Sutra:

EMH:

25 Jul 2014 9:39:28am

The boats have not been stopped, they have been diverted under an impenetrable veil of secrecy that has no place in a democratic country. That same veil of secrecy hides the incredible cruelty with which these people are being treated, confined to revolting camps for months and years, killing hope.

Many of the diverted and hidden people are now trying to end their own lives by suicide.

John Coochey, it is you that is asleep, and deliberately so. You CHOOSE to ignore what your government is doing and it is doing no good!

Paul01:

John Coochey :

25 Jul 2014 3:27:13pm

Well given the boats have stopped if even one person arrives by air then the vast majority have arrived by air. I though even you could work that out. In fact this is a furphy from the start if you check the figures that only applied when boar arrival were not being encouraged by Rudd's policy.

mortan:

25 Jul 2014 11:02:22am

Mark: let me try and understand this. So your saying if Australia allowed boats in through Christmas Island and some people died on the way that's OK because they would have died somewhere else any way.

Mark James:

25 Jul 2014 11:44:45am

Not at all, mortan. I'm saying simply that, if stopping the boats does not also stop people leaving source countries, those people still have to arrive somewhere.

People fleeing Syria, for example, are still fleeing Syria even though they are no longer coming to Australia. Essentially, they are risking death at sea in the Mediterranean (or elsewhere)rather than the Timor Sea.

mortan:

25 Jul 2014 12:38:34pm

Mark sadly the optimum word is dying. There are right ways to immigrate and Australia is demonstrating they dont except the wrong way and perhaps a global policy to discourage people jumping on a boat to run away instead of trying to change things at home should be encouraged.

Mark James:

25 Jul 2014 12:59:55pm

mortan, if "trying to change things at home" was at all feasible, there would not be a 1951 UN Refugee Convention.

If Australia feels so strongly about abandoning its obligations under this convention, then it should unsign the convention and save both the integrity of the convention and our credibility as an international player.

Mark James:

25 Jul 2014 1:05:20pm

mike, the UN defines torture as "Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

It's a strong word, but I honestly don't belive it's use in relation to what is happening in our detention centres is unwarranted.

mike:

25 Jul 2014 1:41:46pm

Mark, holding people in detention while their dubious claims are assessed - people who flew into Asian countries with passports and visas and then destroyed them to make it harder for Australia to determine who they really are and assess their claims, as shown awhile back on ABC Four Corners - is NOT torture by your U.N. definition nor by the dictionary definitions. Someone who has experienced real torture would be outraged by your use of that term. And if the boatpeople were truly fleeing persecution they would be grateful for being in detention where they are safe (until some of them start rioting or burning the place down I suppose). And as I said previously, even you would have to agree that being held for months in detention is vastly preferable to being dashed to death on the rocks of Christmas Island.

Mark James:

25 Jul 2014 3:02:02pm

mike, the definition states "whether physical or mental," so I stand by my use of the word even though I accept some forms of torture would be far worse than others.

As for your "they would be grateful for being in detention", I wouldn't say "grateful" exactly, but given the Coalition has offered some of them money to go home, some of them obviously believe being detained is a lesser evil.

And mike, given I have never been detained in circumstances similar to those now being held in Manus, I honestly cannot answer whether it would be preferable to be dashed to death on rocks, drown slowly in the Mediterranean, or suffer the ongoing torture of indefinite detention.

Andie:

mike:

25 Jul 2014 1:43:51pm

Very disingenuous Mark. The boatpeople drowning in the Med are NOT coming from the same places as the boatpeople trying to reach Australia, they are from different source countries. How many Tamils from India have drowned in the Med lately? Or Iranians?

mike:

Mark James:

25 Jul 2014 5:08:47pm

mike, on June 19, it was reported that Turkey was housing over 1 million refugees from Syria. On 5th June, an Italian Navy vessel rescued 443 Syrian asylum seekers. In April this year, Reuters reported an estimated 6000 people from Eritrea and Syria were rescued in just one week by the Italian navy. In March this year, an EU report into migration via the Mediterranean showed 'the majority of migrants are refugees fleeing from Syria.'

They are not arriving here, mike, they are arriving there. The boats haven't stopped, they've simply been pushed elsewhere.

wiseagain:

25 Jul 2014 10:05:35am

Ladies & G/menYou all miss the point!The Human race has been on a long journey along a very long road, for 6 or 12 or 120000 years, pick one. The road eventually turned into a toll road, but now we are at the base of a cliff called 7 billion people and we are now confronted with a choice. Lefties turn left, right wing nut jobs turn right. The problem is neither economists, Historians or Politicians have a clue as to where these roads or turns are headed. All we can see is a bunch, heap of people laying dead at the base of this huge cliff and we all just assume WE made the right decision, as we all do in our investment decisions and loose. But I don't think we have, neither the right turn or the left turn, you see, its just a ring road nobody has bothered to mark as in and out because nobody managed to come back. WHY. They all went over the cliff, rich and poor alike, once they all got to the top and walked over the side like Lemmings. The moderates who can't decide whether to go left or right might be the only once to survive, but most of us sheep just follow blindly and end up at the bottom of the cliff, DEAD. It is foolish to assume that any of us know anything about the unknown knowns or the known unknowns. All we know is where we have been and no one will turn back towards the knowns because ego's stop us, women just love a fool, they lined the highways for years cheering us fools on as we trotted of to run of the cliff in our fancy green uniforms, with our Degrees in BS of one type or the other. You don't need more nurses doctors, Historians, Economists if you don't have Population explosion and it is the big cliff, so until someone survives the journey and comes back one way or the other to warn the following sheep, will just keep walking, talking the talk but never walking the walk.

THE END of humanity is just around the bend for most of us, keep walking, keep breeding, fools, well at least u won't be alone. There will be someone there to hear you scream as u go over with him/her as u realise its a cliff that u just stepped over, flapping your jaws, not watching, listening or learning, just journeying down the road of human stupidity.

Lost2:

25 Jul 2014 10:09:31am

They have not stopped the boats, why do people keep repeating the lie, the boats are still coming, what has stopped is allowing them to reach Australian territory to claim asylum, what also has stopped is the reporting of boats intercepted, as shown by Morrison denial of the two boat loads of Sri Lankan's, and point out where is it illegal to seek asylum, another lie constantly being sprouted.

EVAN:

Tom1:

25 Jul 2014 10:26:29am

The ends justifies the means does it John C. Just as well that standard does not set the pace for the rest of our lives.

Actually that mantra was first used by John Howard when he decided to use boat refugees as a tool against Labor, and to win an election. We, or most of us, remember his "Children overboard" and following nationalistic speech that moved people like yourself, even to this day.

This is a political tool, ably used by Abbott, and to its discredit, Labor had to follow down the same doubtful path, or forever be wedged.

Lives as sea, your justification for inhumane action, could have been saved had Howard sought a bipartisan response form Labor in the first place instead of taking action, that indeed won him another term, but discredited Australia in the process.

Of course your other comeback would be that those who do not like what this Government is doing in our name, must therefore want unlimited access to boat people, and encourage smugglers. This of course is not true. Labor set up a special committee, using people that even now the Liberals are using in cases of emergency for advice on National issues. However because they were on a good thing Abbott and Morrison resisted any solution that was not theirs. In other words they wanted the boats to continue so that they could change the figures on the billboard.

Your rather simple three line comment does not reflect history on this matter in any way, nor does it do you any credit.

Meanwhile our name is being thrashed, at great expense whilst we use our armed services for actions for which they were not intended. That is unless you take this "Sovereign Borders" thing other that political spin.

john1:

John51:

John C. can't you see the fundamental damage this government's actions are doing to our democracy. Or is your fear and dislike of these people so great that you don't care about the damage.

That is what gets me in all of this debate. People seem quite happy to sacrifice the very fundamentals of our democracy just so they can say these people did not get asylum.

I don't know, maybe some people do not even understand why we have a democracy in the first place, or why it should be more important than the politics of this. Maybe some people don't understand that in a democracy the government of the day is answerable to Parliament, must be answerable to Parliament and through Parliament to the people.

It is a dictatorship where the government puts itself above Parliament; where it is not answerable to Parliament. In a democracy the people elected Parliament and not the government. So when any government deems it is not answerable to Parliament we have a serious problem with our democracy. And when we have public servants who represent that government deem they are not answerable to Parliament we have an even more serious problem with our democracy.

So John C. I would suggest that you need to ask yourself a question as to whether your support for your side of politics is above that of your support for our democracy. Now I don't know about you but to me protecting the fundamental principles of our democracy outweighs any support I may have for any political party or government. And that is because I believe in this country. And that is because I see the dangers of this in what happens overseas.

John Coochey:

Coogera:

25 Jul 2014 11:54:53am

John51

I suspect you do not understand much about democracy. At the last election if a voter had a strong conviction about removing tough measures against boat arrivals he/she voted Greens. About 8 % did so hence confirming that the majority of Australians want tough measures. The Government is carrying out the will of the people - this is democracy.

John51:

25 Jul 2014 2:10:55pm

Coogera, it seems you like John Coochey do not understand much about our democracy. Our democracy operates under our constitution. Within our constitution we do not have political parties, we do not vote for political parties. We instead vote for a Representative of our electorate in the Lower House. And in the Upper House we again vote for those who represent us in the Upper House.

The Government is simply the majority of those representatives who were elected to the Lower House. We did not elect the government. We the people elected those represent us in Parliament.

That means it is Parliament who represent we the people and not the government. That means the government of the day is answerable to Parliament. That means the government of the day is not above Parliament. It is and must be answerable to Parliament and through Parliament to we the people.

I would suggest going and doing a course on our democracy and the way it operates so as to understand the actual facts. The government does not have a majority in both Houses of Parliament. And I would suggest thank heavens for that. So sorry but your claim has no validity.

hello dave:

25 Jul 2014 10:52:56am

If good policy means ignoring our international obligations which we willing signed up to and sending people back into the arms of the Si Lankan police, finding tricky ways to overcome that renowned of all lefty organisations the High Court of Australia, then I suppose you are right. But please do not hide behind the stopping deaths at sea just to ease your conscience. Ask yourself whether you would still want these asylum seekers turned away if they arrived in a Cruise Ship.

john1:

Skeptic:

25 Jul 2014 12:15:17pm

JC, how can you be absolutely certain that the boats have stopped? The powers that be have attempted to stop INFORMATION about the boats, by simply refusing to talk about them, but they have been less than completely successful in this endeavor. The fact is that because of censorship of information about what is happening outside our maritime borders, there is NO way to judge whether or not any policy has actually worked! Furthermore, there has been no information released publicly about how many people are arriving by plane and asking for asylum upon arrival. How do YOU know that those "evil" people smugglers have not simply changed tactics and the numbers of "illegal" arrivals have not been decreasing, at all? Personally, I did not vote for censorship or authorize, via the ballot box, any public official to breach any of Australia's international obligations to protect human rights and dignity. No, there is no good policy to be seen here!

John Coochey :

Joan:

25 Jul 2014 12:17:52pm

Government policy has secured Australian borders. The world knows it now. Asylum seekers have a wide range of legal choice of entry - people smuggler choice is struck off that list. Thanks to Rudd Gillard efforts some people may be suffering consequence of their failed asylum seeker policy.

NEWNORCIA:

25 Jul 2014 1:08:24pm

Whilst I agree with you in principle.the other side of the coin is we really do not know the true situation of what really has happened on the high seas..Could there be more boats being held out at sea Not just one which we hear about everyday.As you know the Government does not release any information in the security of operational matters,( OH YES..I would call it a cover up.I also consider that most of the boat people ( who paid many dollars to the criminal people smugglers are in fact looking for a better economic life..They seem to think Australian streets are paved with gold..OH YES.If they have enough money to travel let them stay in their own country and be productive there with the capital..But oh no they use any excuse to try and land here..tp IMPROVE THE CAPITAL..

Betty:

Aussie Sutra:

25 Jul 2014 4:45:24pm

They will only have failed if they allow the illegals to remain in Australia. At the moment the position of the government is that these illegals will NOT be staying in Australia and will NOT be resettled in Australia. They should be returned to INDIA, which is where they came from.

ummagumma:

The boats are still coming and Morrison will have a bad weekend pondering a challenge to his policy in the High Court next week . I think we can safely say that everyone left of centre will have a fab weekend and everyone right of centre can drown their sorrows...

Aussie Sutra:

25 Jul 2014 4:46:43pm

On this Mr. Morrison can rest easy knowing that he has my support and the support of most Australians as long as he ensures that the illegals being taken to Western Australia are out of Australia as soon as possible and not allowed to be settled here. Australia has his back on this.

John:

25 Jul 2014 3:32:08pm

I totally agree the policy is working, we have taken back control of a situation that Labor/Greens totally stuffed up. Open the boarders and they will come in droves, my question is what is SHY limit? do we stop them after 100,000 or one million or 2 million, where is the boundry?? The boundry is set by intake from the front door.

Gratuitous Adviser:

I do not want Australia to be placed in the position that Europe and the USA have found themselves, which is total loss of control of who comes to their country/s.

It's a time bomb over there that is waiting to explode.

Morrison and the Government are doing a wonderful, but incredibly difficult, job in this area and should be congratulated. The ALP failed to control illegal immigration and lost the last election because of their incompetence in this and other areas. They know it and we know it.

the yank:

Baz:

25 Jul 2014 6:12:00pm

If they've stopped the boats then where did the boats to turn back or the people to return to their country of origin in breach of Australia's obligations or the 157 being kept on a floating prison come from?

Face it, despite these policies people are still risking their lives at sea and wasn't that the claimed objective and the reason given for harsh policies?

And that assuming that 'silence about on water matters' isn't concealing far more intercepts as well as drownings - no one knows because this shoddy government has declared itself above all scrutiny, even that of the senate, above Australian and International law; and of course above the need for accountability to the Australian people.

When Labor gets back in it can only be hoped that they'll launch a royal commission into the possibility that crimes were committed as a direct result of this current government - investigation will be necessary since it's quite possible, as in similar situations of zero accountablity historically, that child abuse is occurring and being covered up and that the government is directly liable in a number of deaths that have already occurred.

Further it seems likely that a number of actions taken breach our basic principle of habeus corpus which is foundational to our entire system of law; and to that of country which is ruled by anything other than a tyrant or dictator.

EvilPundit:

Wasn't that when the Fraser government sent secret agents overseas to sink the boats before they left harbour? I'm not sure we need to go quite that far.

Turning the boats back has proven highly effective. It has removed the need to put more illegal immigrants into detention.

The remaining detainees should be shipped off to their countries of origin - or any country that will take them - as soon as possible.

Despite all the hand-wringing rationalisations of the pro-boat-people lobby, the fact is that Australia does not have the ability to accommodate all the migrants in the world. Australia does, however, have an inalienable right to control its borders and ensure its own survival.

This is the bottom line, and all the obfuscation and blathering of the open borders advocates won't change it.

spacey 101:

25 Jul 2014 5:36:58pm

You made that too easy... Chavez in Bolivia. Brought a country on the brink of ruin to relative prosperity by being a far left socialist, distributing their natural resource wealth to its poorest people all the while calling for America to be destroyed, whilst forging close ties with Iran, Syria and the like. His favourite pastime was reminiscing with Castro in Cuba. Love him or hate him all bolivians will tell you their wealth and stability increased markedly under his iron thumb.

BJA:

25 Jul 2014 12:02:56pm

If I was you I'd feel very upset.

Someone's been concealing the truth from you.

Like me you can buy a Chinese wind turbine which will generate all the energy your home will ever need for a few hundred dollars. If you then get a few of the new solar panels for a thousand or so you (like me) need never see another power bill.

If you then use your excess electricity generating capacity to produce hydrogen from water you can add it to the mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide you get from any old piece of wood give it a squeeze and you've got methanol!

"Cheap and reliable energy"? It's all around you.

You don't have to worry about the sinister mental machinations of the ALP or even the idiotic troglodytic emanations from Bad Habbott or even that other bloke - what's his name. You know who I mean. Larry the Labrador.He doesn't like windmills. That's a worry. I lie awake at night with a terrible mental picture of him as he scales the supports dressed in a leotard as he goes aloft to tear the blades off one by one.

a happy little debunker:

You get next to nothing from a wind turbine, unless it's blowing hard.

Going off-grid in Australia will cost in excess of 10 thousand dollars (depending where you live). How many people around the world have access to a lazy 10 grand, when a third of the world gets by on $2 a day?

BJA:

25 Jul 2014 5:35:13pm

They.ve got at you.I've been off grid for five years, it's totally reliable and cost nothing like 10000. My last addition was a wind turbine for a little over $400. You have to use your brains and turn things off when not in use etc .

Not reliable? We haven't been without electricity in five years.

Do you know that all power to Las Vegas, night and day is about to be supplied by a solar thermal plant?

Come on. Get into the 21st C. It's a good place to be. The human race hasn't had such an opportunity for convenient freedom in thousands of years - if ever before.

Someone has been spinning you stories.

I'm quite serious about manufacturing methanol. It's a relatively very safe, energy dense transportable fuel, and made by pressurising the right proportions of Hydrogen (from water) and hydrogen and carbon monoxide from wood.

mortan:

25 Jul 2014 9:52:59am

the yank: I think all are concerned for persecuted people but I have concerns that many thousands arriving in Australia may lead to Australia becoming the very thing these people are running from surly there are sustainability limitations. Does that concern you ?

mortan:

BJA:

"Australia, however, does have an inalienable right to control its borders and secure its own survival".

Nonsense.

From whence did Australia derive this "inalienable right"?

If you can't work it out, I'll give you a hint.

It comes from exactly the same place as the "right" to mutilate the genitals of the women of Northern Iraq.

If you wish to say that you've got more than you need and you intend to keep things that way while others have far less than they need, at least have the mental integrity to say so.

I go with Tommy Aquinas on this. He said that if you had more than you need and others have less than they need you were required to hand over what you don't need.

They are bloody awkward these Christians who insist on Christianity, aren't they.

It's a bit like pointing out to the crazies in Iraq that if they do believe in their Islamic Occasionalism they might spare a thought about why Allah made human female genitaia the way he did.

Maimonides got it right. He suggested that if when they returned from a long campaign they found their women pregnant they shouldn't be too hard on them - but then Maimonides lived in the bad days before the Reformation when he was allowed to think straight and even have a little joke.

TrevorN:

25 Jul 2014 9:44:42am

EP, we are not expected to take all the refugees the world has to offer. The fact is that we only get a very small percentage of the total. The rest of the world wonders what we are on about. Widen your reading and do a bit of research into the facts and you might see that we are not in any imminent danger of being swamped by waves of refugees.

hidi:

Tom1:

25 Jul 2014 11:08:24am

The trouble is TrevorN, the tone of many of the above bloggers indicates the intelligence of the Coalition voter. This is rather surprising because in years past to vote Liberal was the in thing for those that thought, or pretended to be a little above the hoi polloi. Shows how wrong that thinking was.

For their simple minds the result of Australia taking a more humane stance on boat people will inevitably result in us being swamped with "Heathens" or that oft used insincere term "Deaths at sea"

Had the Liberals forgotten for a minute about political advantage, and asked Labor to work on a bipartisan solution, surely with the collective ingenuity of all of our politicians and public servants, a solution would have been reached by now. One that is eminently better than the current position of using our armed forces for purposes for which they were not intended. Had they even assisted Labor to implement the recommendations of the special committee to look into the issue, things would be better.

We are paying the price of politics. When it all comes down to it the Liberal thinking is that it is better to use any means to gain power, no matter at what cost than to suffer the policies of a Labor Government.

Well we have a Liberal Government, and the issue is far from settled. Boats have not been stopped. If they had been there would not be 150 or so refugees on a customs vessel now.

It is time Liberals and Labor worked together on a bipartisan solution. We have the wrong person as Prime Minister for such a thing to happen.

stalga:

25 Jul 2014 4:32:50pm

Tom1, you are dead right to say that using deaths at sea to defend the policy is insincere. At the height of the crisis parliament was sitting and Gillard asked the LNP to discuss it with her. It never happened. I recall one retiring Labour politician last year saying some individuals actually got exited when a boat went down because they knew they were scoring points. Turns my stomach to think there are people in Canberra like that.

EVAN:

Tom1:

25 Jul 2014 2:06:32pm

The same old dumb question Evan "How many". You justify your support of an unprincipled Coalition government still using the tactic of its equally unprincipled coalition predecessor, by frightening the easily confused with visions of hordes of infidels invading out shores. Thus the name "Sovereign Borders"

You imply that the Parliament of this country, not just the Liberal Party, all of its advisers and sundry public servants have not the wit to solve this problem in a bipartisan manner.

The truth is that this a a political weapon, has won two elections, and the Coalition has no intention of letting go until and if public opinion turns against them. That may take some time. Why do you not make a start by not asking tired old unintelligent questions?

TrevorN:

25 Jul 2014 2:54:12pm

How many? I can think of a dozen cities that have a bigger population than the whole of Australia. We have 25m people now in a land area almost the size of the USA. New York has a higher population than all of OZ. We are 38 times bigger than the UK. London alone has more people living there than we have all over. Indonesia has 150m and China and India have populations in the Billions. We can take a few more here ON OUR OWN TERMS, subject to our environmental and living capacities, and the country will not suffer all that much.

EVAN:

25 Jul 2014 5:43:47pm

"We can take a few more here ON OUR OWN TERMS, subject to our environmental and living capacities, and the country will not suffer all that much."

And when a few more than a few more want to come?.And maybe most of the country don't only want to suffer all that much at all.Got a couple of hundred asylum seekers staying at your place my guess is no you just want the rest of Australia to do the heavy lifting to assuage your guilt.

Freddie Frog:

25 Jul 2014 8:02:15am

The problem is that any proposal that allows boat arrivals resettlement means that they are receiving preferential treatment simply because they have the means and money to escape, leaving other poorer refugees languishing in overseas camps with no hope of resettlement. Allowing them resettlement ensures that the pull factors are enormous.

What we really need to do is lobby for changes to the refugee convention or remove ourselves as a signatory nation. It's an outdated, broken system that needs to be made relevant to the current realities of easy international travel. The current situation of asylum seekers movements is not what it was designed for.

If we refuse to accept any of these people for resettlement ever, the pull factors disappear. We can then proactively raise our overseas humanitarian resettlement limits from pre processed refugees in overseas camps and help those who are truly most in danger of persecution rather than those who simply had the money to get out.

From the Fortress:

25 Jul 2014 8:40:58am

Freddie,You're right in that the asylum seeker/refugee issue is complex. Right or wrong, at least you are thinking about it.As for the rest, do they not understand the difference between an illegal immigrant and a refugee.Most of them call themselves Christians while conveniently ignoring the parts of the bible they don't like (Luke 10:25-37).

Aussie Sutra:

Realist:

25 Jul 2014 11:22:27am

Actually if you took the time to read and consider Luke 10:25-37, it is about a man taking responsibility for a victim and using his own resources to make a difference. Never did he blame anyone else or try to shift responsibility.

Please point out to me where the Good Samaritan, as he is called, demanded his fellow countrymen throw open their borders to all comers and then foot the bill just so that he the Samaritan, could feel good about it.

I have come across many Australians in my lifetime who exhibit the generosity of the Good Samaritan. I have also come across many, particularly on these pages who want everyone else to contribute to their particular feel good campaign why they themselves do little but carp and harangue.

Then of course there are those who seek to tap into government funding streams and use the victims (illegal immigrants) as their access point!

From the Fortress:

25 Jul 2014 12:18:57pm

Realist,As pointed out to Mr. Sutra, I was pointing out the hypocrisy evident in the comments of many posters who like to think of themselves as 'Christian'.'The Good Samaritan' is a parable. "A parable is a succint didactic story in prose or verse, which illustrates one or more instructive lessons or principles."A parable is a type of Analogy where in an Analogy, at least one of the premises or the conclusion is general.

I think the point is, where we can, as a nation, we should act with compassion; and no, that does not mean throwing open the borders. You would have us, as a nation, crossing to the other side of the road.

leafygreens:

25 Jul 2014 12:51:59pm

The good samaritan showed mercy and compassion and didn't walk past the suffering of another: Yes. he gave first aid and transported the injured man to an inn, got him sorted there and paid for his subsequent care at the inn.Australia already does a lot of that through our aid programs and our migration programs. Could we do more? Probably.

What the good samaritan didn't do was take the man to his own home and let him recover there. What a bad neighbour he is!

John Coochey :

stalga:

25 Jul 2014 10:04:37am

Freddie, if we had a better policy of immigration in general over the last 15yrs instead of the education scam that Howard fostered, we could have taken in many, many more people on a humanitarian basis. If we had a much higher level of humanitarian intake we could justify to a greater degree the harsh deterrents we have unfortunately had to resort to. Perhaps we could have a % target of annual immigration.

CJB22:

25 Jul 2014 10:50:11am

I have always had far more sympathy for the impoverished refugees stuck in camps etc who cannot afford to get on boats or get tourist visas and fly into Australia and then claim asylum. I would have thought that it was obvious that most of the help Australia gives should be targeted towards those in the most dire circumstances, not those with money to get here by whatever means. Quite correctly Australia will always have a limit on its annual refugee intake, which does of course vary over time. Those who have the money to arrive by plane or boat are definitely taking the places of those who are too impoverished, and therefor more deserving, to get here by their own means. Hardly seems fair to me.

From the Fortress:

Ivan:

25 Jul 2014 8:02:33am

It is interesting that the pro globalists that run our country do not practice what they preach and just throw open the borders.They seem to want the free movement of good and services around the world, so why not people?

the yank:

25 Jul 2014 8:38:38am

That was an often talked about concept which seems to have fallen off the table. While I can see problems with the concept surely we can do better regarding the movement of people then we are at present.

Coogera:

25 Jul 2014 8:42:13am

Ivan

Indeed the pro globalists have opened the border to anyone who has the skills the country wants. Refugees are unlikely to have these skills and will remain a drain on education, health and welfare resources. Globalisation is about productivity. Excessive refugees do not enhance productivity.

Tom1:

Because Ivan the refugees are not white, catholic escapees from the despotic rule of Zimbabwe.

Now I will admit there is a difference because people of our own culture and dare I mention it, religion, are less likely to cause turmoil at a later date. Or so most people have been lead to think.

Our Government steers away from voicing such motives though, but they are the same as John Howard used to win his election.

The Government is in the difficult position of balancing this issue, between its election winning properties, humanity, xenophobia it is originally responsible for, and appeasing the people it originally deliberately stirred up. Plus of course the growing number that are unhappy with the botch they are making of the whole issue.

Coogera:

25 Jul 2014 11:49:54am

Tom1

It's nonsense to talk about race because migration is entirely linked to skills. Just look at the number of Africans and Indians that are migrating because they bring skills in demand. On the other hand refugees do not bring such skills otherwise they would qualify under normal admission.

Tom1:

25 Jul 2014 2:16:37pm

Coogera: It is nonsense to suggest that race does not play some part. We hold ourselves up as being above that, but what do you think was behind Howard's "We will decide who comes to this country... Did he not also say " We do not want these type of people here". Why do you think the public so vocally responded. As I said he would hardly have said the same about a boat load of white refugees from Zimbabwe.

I am not even going to pretend that it should not be an issue, but to stir up zenophobia for grass political purposes diminished his prime ministership.

I think by your last couple of lines you have evidenced a lack of knowledge of the circumstances of refugees, even if in isolated cases it is true.

sidlaw:

25 Jul 2014 1:23:32pm

Ivan,That would work fine in principle if all countries had the same or perhaps no welfare support but this isn't the case. The support we offer genuine refugees is very attractive compared to most and with open borders, after a time everybody would be dragged down to the lowest common denominator. I don't want that to happen and admit it's selfish.

stalga:

25 Jul 2014 4:11:25pm

Ivan, Chris Berg from the IPA wrote a piece recently advocating open borders. His rationale was that it will solve world poverty. He went so far as to say that he advocates 'much, much higher levels of immigration' here and now. No mention of the downsides though and no detail on why it will work. He conveniently glossed over both. I think he is really just talking about cheap labour.

Both major parties seem to advocate a 'Big Australia', yet propose no plan nor encourage public debate. If we continue on, to quote one expert on the subject 'life here will just get grubbier and meaner'.

Coogera:

25 Jul 2014 8:44:40am

Rusty

Indeed. Europe and the US are hell bent on reducing refugee arrivals. Perhaps many of these refugees can consider how they can improve matters in their own countries rather than expect developed nations to support their failure to govern themselves.

the yank:

25 Jul 2014 8:11:27am

Without the slightest doubt this issue is proving very difficult for Australians.

The present approach of a government cone of silence over the actions they are taking plus the treatment of these people claiming asylum and the detention of children is beyond the moral pale. It is disgusting.

However when we look at the policies of all parties none of them seem to show a real touch of what is happening and what can possibly be done.

At the end of the day with over 50 million people displaced by war, famine, brutal governments, other countries are being swamped by these people. So the number in need would preclude that a requirement for some control over those accepted.

I don't want people dying at sea trying to reach Australia nor do I want them sitting in some Australian ship waiting for our courts to decide their fate.

Australia really needs to look hard at the alternatives. The decisions made should be across party lines. There must be a realisation that these people are not criminals, they are not illegal, they are seeking asylum and that they deserve as much respect as any person.

Monty B:

Undoubtedly. But mantras like `stop the boats` are hardly rational. They may appeal to the muscular rednecks among us but fail to address the more complex policy implications.

No attempt to tie these questions in with the broader issues such as population policy (we have no population policy) pressure on city infrastructure, water supply and predictions of future rainfall, skilled migration needs, multicultural issues etc.

Then there is the blatant hypocrisy of conservatives and libertarians who, on every other question such as plain packaging of cigarettes or accurate food labelling, advocate for personal responsibly over state intervention. But brown people on boats weighing risks and making difficult personal decisions?well, stopping them is a victory over drownings. Obviously they need comfortable white people to tell them what`s in their best interests.

You talk of rational thinking. Instead we have Abbott and Morrison pushing the impression that a few thousand arrivals is a significant proportion of our annual six figure immigration intake. Not just irrational but innumerate.

Tom1:

25 Jul 2014 2:28:04pm

FG: I will graciously overlook the fact that you feign ignorance on the circumstances that originally caused this issue to be a partisan one. Politics is a clue for you.

That said are you really suggesting that the current practices of the Coalition, "Sovereign borders" use of our military, deaths in detention centres, keeping people confined on customs vessels, children in custody, mental issues, bad international coverage, is going to end in a way that is a credit to us and our current crop op politicians.

Monty B:

25 Jul 2014 6:26:11pm

Wrong FG. This is about politics. It`s not about turn backs, deterrents or sovereignty. And the readiness of conservatives to suspend their usual commitment to individual responsibility around risk taking shows just how the race to the bottom takes precedence over all. Just as Howard had his battlers, Abbott has his bogans.

MDG:

25 Jul 2014 10:05:33am

Something that keeps getting airbrushed from history is that the abolition of the Pacific Solution WAS bipartisan. To quote the Coalition's then-Shadow Immigration Minister, Sharman Stone, back in 2009, "We don't need the Pacific Solution now, that's Nauru Island and Manus Island, because we have the Christmas Island centre completed. A very well structured and appropriate facility for people who need to be, of course, detained very, very, so I say humanely, so they very quickly can have their identities, their security, their character and health status checked."

The Coalition figured out the mistake a lot sooner, though, but proceeded to milk it for all it was worth and did everything possible to make life harder for Labor. Which certainly makes political sense and which paid rich dividends in that regard, but puts the lie to the notion that they were motivated by purely humanitarian concerns for the safety of life at sea.

meredith:

25 Jul 2014 10:15:16am

So are you saying it is only voters from the Left who try to think of a humane solution to refugee arrivals? If that is the case, then I am proud to call myself that. Does it not concern you that conservative voters seem to advocate for the toughest solution of all.

the yank:

Lorenzo:

25 Jul 2014 8:14:08am

Mike, it doesn't matter which way you dress up your argument - this response would once again mean an open birder policy. Such a policy will immediately reopen the criminal networks which will utilise this policy and steal the money from their customers on a false promise.When are the "refugee" advocates going to wake up. The response to the weak policies of Rudd and Gillard not only cost us billions but allowed an open immigration program for economic refugees who were coached by people smugglers and government funded lawyers and advocates on how to access the back door to Australia, You only have to look at the profile of may of the people accepted under Rudd and Gillard - good old centrelink was one of the marketing strategies used by the smugglers and as we can see with over 90% still receiving centrelink after five years,The other issue you fail to grasp is the impact on genuine migrants who pay their money and bring skills to the country.I just do not understand how these advocates can hate their country like this - seriously what do you think our society would be like if we continued to run the open / backdoor policy of Rudd and Gillard?

Rabbithole:

25 Jul 2014 8:17:38am

It does not matter what the people want, the ALPLNP run the government and bureaucracy. If the ALPLNP gangland bosses tell the military to kill them all, thats what they have to do. Its no different to Hitler.

The 2 most corrupt business in Australia owned by the Corporations do not have to care what the people want. They both want offshore detention so that is the way it will be.

The contracts to detain refugees indefinitely are lucrative contracts and that is why there multinational business pay the ALPLNP.

A choice between the better of two evils is still evil and that is all we are left with in Australia, democracy has been bought out and the ruling elite are nothing but corporate stooges and good liars. Thats why the corp[orations pay the scholarships of the ruling elite and pay millions for election propaganda

Every ALPLNP government since the US Australian Vietnam Invasion has been crap, what do u expect when these are the only 2 political corporations with the money to pay for mass brainwashing and propaganda and keep getting reelected.

TGU:

25 Jul 2014 8:51:16am

What an idiotic post Rabbit, we did not "Invade" Vietnam, we sent troops there at the behest of the legally elected South Vietnamese government to assist them in the defence of their country against the aggression of North Vietnam. To compare our political system to the Nazis is reprehensible. The rest of your ramble is so ridiculous it doesn't warrant a reply.

Rabbithole:

"we did not "Invade" Vietnam" does this include the secret war in Cambodia where millions of bombs where dropped?

How about Iraq and Afghanistan, we we invited in there as well?

The basic analysis is the ALPLNP do not represent the common good or the majority of Australians views, they represent corporate interests.

Our bureaucracy is really no better than Hitler in moral terms, we are just better at hiding it. How many people do you think the ALPLNP have killed approving for use poisons never tested on humans and having synthetic estrogen as part of the food chain and not be able to produce an investigation on it in over 20 years of time wasting?

How many Australians are suffering from Hormone Related Cancers as a result of the ALPLNP taking corporate bribes to allow hormones to contaminate the food supply? The answer is about 3 times more than 30 years ago.

Acting like the ALPNP as pirates on high seas, locking people up indefinitely and murdering them in overseas detention centres is very similar to Nazi Germany, including the secrecy on 'Operational/Bureaucratic' matters.

What are the ALPLNP ruling elite doing with our money...we are not allowed to know.

TGU:

25 Jul 2014 4:12:29pm

Yes it does Rabbit, we did not invade Iraq, Afghanistan or Cambodia. Comparing Nazi concentration camps to Australian run detention centres is an insult to those who endured the real thing and those work at the Australian camps.

Rabbithole:

25 Jul 2014 10:12:24am

There is nothing legal about refugees being sent to foreign jurisdiction to be murdered and excluded from Australian law.

Its one law for the rich migrants and one law for people seeking refuge from the worlds Hitlers. The ALPLNP are both breaking the law and people should never vote for these cartels ever again, no matter what face they put up front. There a scam. Get rid of the gangs.

Forrest Gardener:

MDG:

25 Jul 2014 10:26:07am

Of course, there's also a (3) which is turn the boats around + resettlement in third countries and no doubt many other combinations. There's no evidence that mandatory detention does anything as a deterrence since it has been the one constant policy element for twenty years, though there is a case for it while initial health and identity checks are done. Nor is there evidence that denial of permanent residence (ie, TPVs) does anything good since the number of arrivals actually went UP after the Howard Government introduced it. Reducing this to false dichotomies - just look at how many people are pretending that the only alternative to current policy is open, unguarded borders - is unhelpful.

Alfie:

Clusterpod:

"Directly causing" is stretching the truth a little. But yes, I'd like to see those responsible tried.

...and what of the nearly 700 deaths at sea with the Coalition Government in power previously?

Its a fact conveniently forgotten when this "1200" number is casually thrown about. Asylum seekers drowned at sea under the Coalition as well. Only those with short memories, or actively trying to revision history will forget that.

MDG:

25 Jul 2014 10:18:33am

Do you also say that the Coalition is "directly" responsible for the hundreds of deaths that occurred on boats during the Howard Government and the dozens that occurred even under the present government?

Rabbithole:

25 Jul 2014 10:14:26am

KK,

Morison was the minister responsible for sending refuges to be murdered overseas. There's the blood and the whole rotten corps. He's so guilty he's stopped the bureaucracy or anyone else even telling anyone who he has had killed overseas.

Joan:

Clusterpod:

And I'm talking about the nearly 700 that dies at sea while the Coalition was in Government before them.

And I'm talking about the murder, the assaults, the suicides, self-harm and sickness that people in indefinite detention have suffered under Morrison.

I'm talking about the people that have met an end that we will never know about because of "on-water" silence. I'm talking about the people sent back to the countries they were desperately escaping and the people harmed by military vessels we provided the Sri Lankan government.

APM:

25 Jul 2014 8:24:20am

There is a failure here to accept the basic reality that Australia is a wealthy country and millions from the third world be prepared to do whatever it takes to access our wealth. This means it is not tenable for Australia to accept people joining our society merely with a 'likely story' of persecution. We cannot know who is genuinely at risk. However we do know that EVERY asylum seeker travels a vast distance for economic gain and most 'lose' their documents along the way. Loads of lies and deception and violence and self harm and convenient pregnancies, and why do they all seem to be related to each other? These things should be clues. It's embarrassing and frustrating to see otherwise intelligent people switch their brains off and deny pull factors and widespread gaming of the system. It's not moral to choose to be stupid and gullible. We might as well open up a Department of Compassion and hand out money to anyone who feels they really deserve it without any need for proof. Some people just believe in a borderless world and this is why refugee advocates don't care about us being swamped by their 'compassion'.

Bob :

25 Jul 2014 1:46:38pm

Thank-you APM, as usual you are the one with the most cogent argument here. (If the Ai,Be,Ce wanted balanced views with someone to appeal to the conscience in the clearest language, with all the power of personal conviction they would ask you to write on the subject.)Thank-you for this piece.....Those on the economic and cultural vandal left are prepared to sell off our future and our children?s future for some short-term feel good by opening our borders to all the desperate in the world. Open your eyes and see the real world people. There are many that live in extreme poverty and will do almost ANYTHING for an easy ride at Australia?s expense. I suspect many of the people in detention have never had it so good; easy meals, free accommodation, no crime. Why would they want to go back home?

Alfie:

25 Jul 2014 8:25:10am

"Even some of the strongest supporters of the Liberal Party and its policy of turning back the boats cannot feel comfortable about many of the actions being taken in the name of securing our sovereign borders."

Where is your evidence to back this statement Mike? You are just making it up aren't you?

As a Liberal supporter, I am perfectly comfortable with the turn-back policy - it is a significant deterrent.

My sympathies lie with the REAL refugees who are stuck in camps for years and who are being gazumped by these 'country-shopping' illegal invaders. That is the real tragedy in this saga.

phil:

25 Jul 2014 9:20:11am

not really

wouldn't it be better for the country to get those people who can raise the huge amounts of money to travel to Oz - and are willing to take the risks of travelling, as against those who don't have money, and just sit around on day and wait for someone to tell they can now come to Australia.

Risk takers with money, or poor people who do nothing to improve their lives. Which one do you prefer ?

And in case anyone misses it, i'm being sarcastic. I would take those from the refugee camps over the people paying smugglers any day of the week.

APM:

25 Jul 2014 9:21:04am

Alfie, it would be more correct to say that 'even some of the strongest supporters of the LABOR Party cannot feel comfortable about many of the actions being taken in the name of renouncing our sovereign borders so anyone can enter our community based on lies at our expense and kill people with compassion.'

Breakfast in Bed:

25 Jul 2014 9:32:26am

What rubbish, you couldn't give a toss about people languishing in camps. In fact some of those you claim to be country shoppers/illegal immigrants/economic migrants, originate from those very camps. Tell me are you happy to accept them? Or are they illegal by the very nature of having chosen a boat.

The assumption that people would leave their birthplace, family, culture, history, language and everything they know and understand behind to tempt fate against the ocean, is utterly ludicrous.

Our lives are ruled by the almighty dollar and materials, others are ruled by the instinct to survive and save their lives, nothing more, nothing less.

Your point of view regarding asylum seekers wholly incorrect, but as you have demonstrated countless times, that is completely irrelevant to your perspective

MDG:

25 Jul 2014 10:28:54am

Just out of interest, Alfie, given where your sympathies lie, what is your view of the government cutting 6,250 places per year from the humanitarian intake programme that is directed towards helping those refugees stuck in camps?

Alphamikefoxtrot:

25 Jul 2014 10:50:32am

Of course, the real difference is that in supposedly raising the intake from 13,750 to 20,000 per year, Labor only agreed that 12,000 of these places would be for refugees in overseas camps, meaning at the very least, they were budgeting for 8,000 boat arrivals a year, most of whom, according to Bob Carr, are economic migrants.The Coalition has quarantined nearly all the 13,750 places for refugees in overseas camps. I know which one I think is more humanitarian.

MDG:

25 Jul 2014 11:19:43am

Labor actually said that *at least* 12,000 of those places were for resettlement from offshore, so that was the minimum rather than the maximum. But even if that wasn't the case, the provision was still made for 20,000 places - why not use the defeat of the people smugglers to maximise the advantage for the refugees languishing in the camps? Or is all the heartfelt concern for the people in the camps limited to just 1,750 of them?

Alphamikefoxtrot:

25 Jul 2014 4:47:49pm

But of course you ignore the fact that thousands were arriving illegally under Labor, so the 'at least' provision was irrelevant as Labor were too powerless, gutless and clueless to do anything about it. The heartfelt concern is for everyone, including those sentenced to drown a sea by Labor and the ability to take 13,750 of those most needing protection.

maureen:

25 Jul 2014 8:27:24am

yes, we do have the right to protect our borders but there has to be another humane way of being part of the protection of people running from inhumane treatment. Surely if we increased the intake of people fleeing their countries say to 20,000 per year, instead of decreasing it back to 13500 as has now been done, these people would be prepared to wait their turn instead of putting their families to the unknown risk. We have to ask the question what we we do if we were put in a similar situation, it could have happened when the japanese came into Sydney Harbour, people were moving from the eastern suburbs very quickly.

John Coochey:

25 Jul 2014 8:42:49am

Maureen the question I asked the local Green's Candidate"set the refugee intake at any level you like by any means of arrival given that there are N million refugees in the world what do you do when that quota is reached and another boat arrives?" I did not give a coherent answer. Can you give one?

maureen:

25 Jul 2014 8:58:44am

If I was a refugee and knew that in 1 to 2 years in Indonesia or where ever then I could be legally accepted in australia I would be prepared to wait my turn. Yes there could be some who would not but if that were the case then I would not be against turning them back to where they came from and saying that they would go on the end of the queue.

a happy little debunker:

Marueen, the 20 000 limit was raised because Labor was self-assured it's policies of deterrants would stop the flow of illegal maritime arrivals.

LABOR was WRONG, as is your suggestion these people would be prepare to wait.

Your suggestion fails because the ones coming by boat are not registered with the UNHCR as refugees. Despite having multiple oppurtunities to register in any of the countries that they pass through to get here.

By stopping the boat, the LNP are increasing our actual resettlment of registered refugees - something that Labor & their Green allies could & would not do!

Michael:

25 Jul 2014 8:29:32am

Four years ago I met a Tamil who was accepted as a refugee. He told me this the only had to wait a certain period of time and he could go back to Sri Lanka to visit his parents and he was going to. His story was soldiers looking for Tamil fighters and weapons came into their house and during a struggle one of the soldiers hit him in the face with the butt of his rifle knocking his front teeth out. I thought at he time if things are so bad why would he go back and also why didn't the soldiers just shoot him if they are as bad as alleged. I don't believe that the situation is as bad as it is being made out in Sri Lanka by some and is getting better as those Tamils who caused the civil war are either dead, imprisoned or left. I would like to know how many refugees have actually returned to Sri Lanka on a holiday to visit relatives or friends since being accepted as refugees? Because if there are large numbers of them there is no reason for Australia to accept Sri Lankans as refugees. If those claiming refugee status and are Tamil fighters we definitely don't want violent extremists here and they should be sent back whatever the consequences facing them in Sri Lanka.

Brasso:

25 Jul 2014 8:29:58am

Yes, as some others have pointed out, the governments policy is working, and working well. Well done to all concerned.

However, the 1951 convention is still a festering sore. Either get it amended to operate in synch with the new world order (including a mechanism to ensure that people smuggling operations are exempt from access) or lets pull out of the damn thing!

Until this is done, we will periodically revisit moments of madness, especially when a group such as the Greens enjoy a balance of power.

AJS:

25 Jul 2014 8:30:02am

I like some of the points raised above but would also like to contribute the following.I think it should be assumed by every one that Australia and Australians want to assist refugees by offering asylum that is safe, welcoming, and provides a future.The concern is how the asylum seeker arrives into the country and as to their motivation in doing so.The use of professional smugglers, the destruction of documents, the use of communication devices to contact advocates of the asylum seeker industry before arriving casts a pall over the refugee even before they arrive.The other issue is as to where the refugee is fleeing from that again casts doubt about the genuine nature of the application. The recent Tamil's seem to be fleeing from India, or others seem to be fleeing from Indonesia after passing through several other countries on the way.I believe Australia has a right to screen refugees before accepting them into the country, are they fleeing persecution because of their beliefs or is it because they were involved in criminal activity and so on. We do not have to accept one and all.I am comfortable with some of the recommendations above but still remain concerned that they do not address the issues I have raised above. Non acceptance for any one who pays a third party to get here - I am very happy to be corrected but I feel sure that the Vietnamese refugees of the 70's were not paying smugglers.Limited acceptance for those asylum seekers who have already found asylum in another country - India or Indonesia for example.And finally a realistic annual cap on the numbers to be accepted

Forrest Gardener:

AJS:

25 Jul 2014 11:04:14am

They wait for the next year quota to be announced - a bit like a hospital waiting list for non elective surgery.Publicly announce that the waist list for those arriving by boat is 5 (or 10 or whatever it is) years in detention before their cases will be considered.And perhaps some of the debt of the detention will have to be paid back like a HECS debt.

Forrest Gardener:

Coogera:

25 Jul 2014 8:38:07am

The article mentions that there are better ways to handle the refugee issue. Typically these better approaches are never explained possibly because they really don't exist. The fact is the government strategies are working in favour of controlling unwanted refugees.

Controlled migration has been central to Australia's prosperity and security. Social harmony is always fragile as witnessed by the Cronulla riots and the large number of young people going to fight with jihadists. The arrival of large numbers of refugees on boats threatens to destabilise this social harmony. A major factor will be the collapse of the welfare education and health sectors due to a lack of funds to cope.

The government has sent a strong message that there is no advantage in arriving in Australia without a visa. This has to be backed up with a raft of measures which ensure those who ignore the warning suffer the consequences. They are of course free to go at any time.

mortan:

I really don't know what the ABC hopes to achieve by banging on about this the policy works the boats don't reach Australia any more and surely many are now not risking death to get here.

The ABC must know the policy will not change there is a federal election in about two years for Australians to vote for change and a return to Labor green alliance policy of open boarders if they choose.

Coogera:

25 Jul 2014 9:11:15am

mortan

The chances are only the Greens will pursue an open borders policy to cater for the minority who advocate this. The ALP has learnt its lesson so will be very careful not to differentiate itself from the LNP apart from some window dressing.

APM:

25 Jul 2014 9:14:40am

The pro open border onslaught is relentless at the ABC isn't it morton? Its astonishing that the Left puts so much effort into finding ways to import as much of the third world as it can and stuff the obvious calamitious consequences. What a ridiculous and mad obsession and at my expense. I think it's worse than just white guilt. It should be in DSM as a disorder and would involve elements of narcissism and disordered thinking and suicide ideation. There is no space at the ABC for content from the practical, rational majority to have their say on this matter. Sensible people know exactly who is hurting who in this world and why and how net human potential could be improved and we aren't allowed to talk about it because it might 'offend' the perpetrators. Instead the answer is always for white people to sacrifice themselves to accommodate the cultures that are obviously the sources of misery. It's beyond stupid; it really is mad.

mortan:

Bob Brown:

25 Jul 2014 10:55:11am

Yes APM,

I concur.

Having observed and analyzed for years and from several angles the behaviour of the compulsory/obsessive-3rdworld-welcomer, it happened to me as well to come to the conclusion that a terminal mental disorder is at play in her/his dysfunctional worldview.

Another distinctive and recurring trait of theirs is the incapacity to contextualize.

All that may indicate the craved end of the line for their evolutionary branch. The sane subject will distance and disengage from this ill mutation before being dragged down with it.

Lehan Ramsay:

phil:

25 Jul 2014 8:44:19am

many of the 'refugees' coming from indonesia in boatswill have flown into indonesia by commercial airlinethus needing passports etc. They have also obviouslyleft unhindered the country from which they have come.In australia there is a fairly rigorous regime of checkingthe bona fides of visitors to make sure they are not coming to work or overstay their visas.The powers that be in indonesia have always their fingersin any business dealings or corrupt practices going onin that country. It would i think not be above some of thosein power to be part of the problem and also the solution thusreceiving money from both parties.I still have my suspicions over the bali bombimg itoccurred when indonesia was still smarting overits loss of face on timor, and resulted in monetarygrants and military help to fight "terrorism" in indonesia

Lorenzo:

25 Jul 2014 9:09:39am

Are you serous? What worries me is that this reckless approach is embraced by a political class who live to see Australia import the chaos of these countries. Are you also going to support the child marriages; discrimination against women; female genital mutilation and other "cultural traditions" that come with such an approach?

Dove:

Lorenzo:

25 Jul 2014 2:07:44pm

Their country has an obligation to shelter their own citizens. But Hamas is using them as human shields. I also think you reference to the hijab has nothing to with what I said. I am talking about an open door policy based on a spurious definition of a refugee.

Dove:

Coogera:

25 Jul 2014 9:15:44am

Duniya

How appalling that you would expect the PM to ignore what is an Australian tragedy to prance on the world stage about an issue that has nothing to do with this country. The reality of course is that human trafficker advocates do not have the best interests of Australians in mind.

Tory Boy:

Claudius Pseudonymus:

25 Jul 2014 8:47:17am

What a whitewashing revisionist piece of nonsense. Aust & the West took in the Viet Boat People bcos they felt they had to cleanse themselves of their guilt in the Vietnam War. And also bcos they foolishly refused to heed ASEAN's warning that to treat the Viets as "refugees" would only encourage more. I

By insisting they were "refugees" Australia and the West precipitated a human catastrophe which saw over 2 MILLION people setting sail and over 200-400,000 drowned. And who remembers the thousands that were murdered, robbed, raped and kidnapped by pirates to be sold into Thai brothels, hmm??

The Rudd-Gillard-Rudd govts repeated the same foolishness and found themselves fumbling & stumbling to solve a human & political crisis they created which eventually saw 50,000 illegal arrivals, 1,000 drowned and over $30 BILLION of our taxes wasted to save the 2 faces of Rudd & Gillard.

And of course you avoided mentioning that the 41 recently returned illegals almost all admitted they were coming to seek "employment" in Australia. The ABC also omitted to publish the fact that Italy has had to "rescue" over 10,000 illegal immigrants in the Mediterranean, apart from hundreds drowned, in just the past month alone.

And you neglected to highlight the one important fact that ALL of the detainees can leave anytime they want. They have had and still have the option of a fully paid return ticket to where they came from. All this "self harm" nonsense is nothing less than emotional BLACKMAIL encouraged by and concocted by sanctimonious bleeding hearts with their own agendas.

Claudius Pseudonymus:

25 Jul 2014 8:47:30am

What a whitewashing revisionist piece of nonsense. Aust & the West took in the Viet Boat People bcos they felt they had to cleanse themselves of their guilt in the Vietnam War. And also bcos they foolishly refused to heed ASEAN's warning that to treat the Viets as "refugees" would only encourage more. I

By insisting they were "refugees" Australia and the West precipitated a human catastrophe which saw over 2 MILLION people setting sail and over 200-400,000 drowned. And who remembers the thousands that were murdered, robbed, raped and kidnapped by pirates to be sold into Thai brothels, hmm??

The Rudd-Gillard-Rudd govts repeated the same foolishness and found themselves fumbling & stumbling to solve a human & political crisis they created which eventually saw 50,000 illegal arrivals, 1,000 drowned and over $30 BILLION of our taxes wasted to save the 2 faces of Rudd & Gillard.

And of course you avoided mentioning that the 41 recently returned illegals almost all admitted they were coming to seek "employment" in Australia. The ABC also omitted to publish the fact that Italy has had to "rescue" over 10,000 illegal immigrants in the Mediterranean, apart from hundreds drowned, in just the past month alone.

And you neglected to highlight the one important fact that ALL of the detainees can leave anytime they want. They have had and still have the option of a fully paid return ticket to where they came from. All this "self harm" nonsense is nothing less than emotional BLACKMAIL encouraged by and concocted by sanctimonious bleeding hearts with their own agendas.

MDG:

gerard oosterman:

25 Jul 2014 8:51:51am

Yes if ever there was an issue whereby Australia will stand condemned it is this issue.Thank you Mike.It all makes a mockery of our leaders concerns about the Ukraine disaster. Is our treatment to boat people less cruel? Cruelty is cruelty no matter who commits it. Was Reza's murder a lesser murder?

Coogera:

25 Jul 2014 9:26:19am

gerard

On the contrary, Australia is admired by other developed nations. Italy is turning around the boats and EU nations will not allow any in who have been processed n Italy.

The current policies are humane, just and pragmatic. They are humane because we resettle refugees and support those in camps. They are just because we cater for the most needy. They are also pragmatic because they have been successful in controlling migration.

The only people condemning Australia are human traffickers, their advocates, others who earn a living off the trade, the delusional and enemies of the Australian people. .

Mark James:

Coogera:

25 Jul 2014 11:15:17am

Mark

We are not forcing them in detention centres. That is the outcome of a failure to provide adequate documentation (which they have destroyed). They are free to go any time they like. Surely the fact we don't want them is sufficient grounds to clear off.

Mark James:

25 Jul 2014 11:50:55am

Coogera, we are forcing them into detention centres because they would not be in those detention centres were it not for our forcing them in there.

The fact is, as far as I can tell, the Abbott government has even offered them money to go home. Which would seem to suggest that, for whatever reason, home is less preferable than the detention centres.

Perhaps we should congratulate ourselves for torturing people in ways that are preferable to the ways they have previously been tortured?

mike:

25 Jul 2014 12:13:26pm

Mark James, no one is torturing people in detention centres. That sort of absurd hyperbole does not win anyone over to your cause. And surely waiting around in a detention centre for months is preferable to being dashed to death on the rocks of Christmas Island, an horrific tragedy which happend as a direct result of the policies you advocated.

Mark James:

25 Jul 2014 2:03:35pm

mike, the UN defines torture as "Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

It's a strong word, but I honestly don't belive it's use in relation to what is happening in our detention centres is unwarranted.

mike:

25 Jul 2014 2:27:56pm

Mark, holding people in detention while their dubious claims are assessed - people who flew into Asian countries with passports and visas and then destroyed them to make it harder for Australia to determine who they really are and assess their claims, as shown awhile back on ABC Four Corners - is NOT torture by your U.N. definition nor by the dictionary definitions. Someone who has experienced real torture would be outraged by your use of that term. And if the boatpeople were truly fleeing persecution they would be grateful for being in detention where they are safe (until some of them start rioting or burning the place down I suppose). And as I said previously, even you would have to agree that being held for months in detention is vastly preferable to being dashed to death on the rocks of Christmas Island.

mike:

25 Jul 2014 5:03:26pm

What colours would those be, Mark? Yellow? You would just give them the benefit of the doubt, apparently. I think a more cautious approach is warranted and so do both major parties - wasn't it Labor that started mandatory detention in the first place?

Besides, genuine refugees can apply through established channels set up for them to do just that.

Mark James:

25 Jul 2014 5:16:45pm

Yes mike, I would prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt. That is our obligation under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. If we don't want to give them the benefit of the doubt, then we need to unsign the convention and at least keep our integrity and protect the integrity of the convention.

And yes, it was Labor which started mandatory detention, but who started it doesn't matter unless scoring points for political parties is your only purpose here.

And as for your "established channels" mike, I may be wrong, but I suspect you would know that that is not always an option.

mike:

25 Jul 2014 6:15:20pm

PS I should clarify that what I mean by "dubious" is "those who fly to Asian countries with valid passports and visas and then destroy them before reaching Australia so it is harder for Australian authorities to determine who they really are." Which means the majority of boatpeople according to former Labor minister Carr and many others.

Coogera:

25 Jul 2014 12:14:26pm

Mark

The conditions in the camps are superior to UNHCR refugee camps hence there is no real issue about the conditions. These people deserve no more than any other refugee. However as I said if they don't like it they can leave or return to Indonesia. We are not forcing them to stay.

They stay because they hope somehow the system will break and they can get the benefits of a life in Australia. They are encouraged in this by advocates. They would all now be hoping something advantageous comes out of the High Court ruling.

Mark James:

Coogera:

25 Jul 2014 1:48:32pm

Mark

I didn't actually raise any questions but to your initial response "keeping hundreds of children imprisoned in conditions that turn them slowly insane is not humane"

Yes I agree but I don't agree the conditions we provide do that. As I said our conditions are superior to that of UNHCR refugee camps. if there are problems with conditions then they can be improved. Keep in mind however that when someone wants to be declared a refugee then they get the world of the refugee not that of a developed nation.

mortan:

25 Jul 2014 9:28:30am

Hello Gerard: Like many here you are critical of the Austrlian governments policy in stopping the boats yet you offer no alternative for us to consider the Labor Green's policy left many dead is this what you want ?

Mark James:

mike:

25 Jul 2014 6:12:56pm

it would only have covered the first 800 boatpeople; for those that exceeded that number the problem would remain, so it was not a viable long term solution (although I supported it at the time as worth trying, at least).

Dove:

25 Jul 2014 10:49:26am

Pitiful by any standard. And just how would you advise a child or the elderly to stop a war or overthrow a tyrant or stop racial violence? Remember those chinese students who stayed after 1989? Did you suggest that they go back to Bejing and take on some tanks?

mike:

25 Jul 2014 2:12:58pm

Jews are fleeing Europe today in numbers not seen since the 1930s, not because of Nazis but because of the influx of Muslims, one result being attacks on synagogues and shocking attacks on Jews in France, Sweden, Belgium and elsewhere. There was a case to be made for multiculturalism until one incompatible group destroyed it. And here we have Bob Carr quoted as saying Labor should stop supporting Israel because there are far more Muslim voters here than Jews.

Lorenzo:

25 Jul 2014 10:33:52am

Again this displays that there are a group of Australians who are more willing to embrace the slogans of social media and twitter. The post is offensive to those on MH17, they were legally going about their business. The unfortunate death of Reza in a detention centre is no less tragic, however, you could show some analysis and ask why was he there. Quite clearly he was not a refugee. You may also wish to start analysing some of the statistics in relation to boat people claiming refugee status. First question should be- how many return to their country of origin (which they were forced to flee) within 5 years of gaining entry? Before you damn Australian Policy - you may ask yourself: Why is Australia condemned for protecting its borders - why is Australia condemned for protecting the integrity of its immigrations system - why is Australia condemned for stopping deaths at sea caused by bad policy that supported a people smuggling industry run by criminals?

Max:

25 Jul 2014 8:54:02am

This article is just a whole lot of left leaning nonsense. If the Abbott policies in whole do not work, then why have the boats stopped? Seriously, I am stunned sometimes at the things that come from the pens of some of our journalist.

MDG:

25 Jul 2014 10:12:17am

I think the article is saying that the policies DO work, but that it isn't worth the cost. And it's talking about both Labor and Liberal policies, too, since the mandatory detention policy that the article is mainly critical of is a Labor invention from the 1990s.

little umngus:

25 Jul 2014 8:54:34am

Mike you have it.We should get QANTAS to immediately start emergency flights from all the world's trouble spots and bring in these people, like ten pound pommy migrants the way we used to.The car factories at Elizabeth and Geelong should be opened for employment & SPC can become government owned for more employment.

mortan:

25 Jul 2014 9:36:42am

I tend to agree. Return to a Labor will guarantee a flood of boats that will continue to increase. I have real concerns about the fragility of our environment and the reluctance of the greens to engage in sustainable population policy.

Gordon:

25 Jul 2014 12:27:33pm

I think it tells you just what a hopelessly unrealistic idea a sustainable population policy is, that even the Greens won't touch it.

When you put a number on something (refugees per year, total population, budget deficit, whatever) you have to say what you will do when that number is exceeded. A commitment the squibbing of which by the hand-wringers has not gone unnoticed.

Mike (the other one):

25 Jul 2014 3:39:35pm

The Greens won't address it because it goes against their left leanings and their desire to save anybody with a sad story to tell. But the queue of sad story tellers will never end unless the real underlying problem of overpopulation is addressed. And the leadership will need to come from the developed world on that one - I for one am waiting with bated breath.

prison:

25 Jul 2014 5:59:58pm

Well everyone seems to object to a 1 child policy such as China has and clearly Eugenics isnt a popular topic. What other options are there?. secretly steralise Africans while pretending to immunise them?

Population control will be a concern for all of us but to single out the Greens for being unwilling to act when there are no popular or easy choices for any political party and no willingness to act from any party makes this criticism quite hypocritical.

Mike (the other one):

25 Jul 2014 7:08:20pm

Actually prison, most of the developed world has sustainable population (fertility rates around 2) because women are educated, which has probably been serendipitous, but nevertheless it allows us to be the leaders on sustainable population. The challenge is to make our position clear to problematic countries and cultures - the main way being by extremely strict immigration control.

The Greens fail on using the available assets and 'tools' for policy.

I hope your children and grandchildren have the Australia we have enjoyed.

Stuffed Olive:

25 Jul 2014 9:07:32am

With a couple of exceptions the response to this article is just the same old heartless and lying argument. The drowning figures have been magically increased by 50% and those hundreds who drowned under Howard's government have disappeared. The crux of the article is ignored. The good people aren't bothering to debate this same mob who support the criminal Morrison policy because they are tired of this mob of rusted on haters.

Stuffed Olive:

25 Jul 2014 10:25:59am

The mandatory detention commenced by Labor 2 decades ago was in response to the fact that asylum seeker numbers were beyond a handful and detention was for health checks and so forth. Under Howard mandatory detention was dehumanised and turned into concentration camps with the inmates sewing their lips together and going mad. Labor didn't implement that kind of detention.

Having said that, I am not like Liberal supporters who blindly support anything their party chooses to do. I never supported Nauru or Manus' reopening and I openly said on this Drum that Rudd's last minute announcement prior to 2013 election was horrid.

hidi:

25 Jul 2014 10:28:22am

I would have thought the loss of one life lost of the thousands that were smuggled into Australia was too many. I guess that is why there is an official immigration policy to ensure people are safe and arrive in sustainable numbers.

Stuffed Olive:

25 Jul 2014 10:55:37am

Official immigration policy/policies never took into account what is happening in the world over the last couple of decades. Did you not read how asylum seekers (boat people) were dealt with post Vietnam - different story altogether. I find all this concern for loss of life (from Liberal or Labor) more a cover for racism than anything else. Not the right kind of refugee! Where is the concern for their loss of life or persecution or safety in Afghanistan or Iraq or Sri Lanka etc? How lucky we are to have been born in Australia.

Sea Monster:

25 Jul 2014 12:04:04pm

There it is. Some people are just expletive out of luck. We don't like to face the reality but we can't save them all. We don't like to admit it to ourselves but we make cost benefit decisions on people's lives every day. My hot shower causes global warming and a kid in Sudan dies in a famine. The smart phone I'm using right now incorporates blood minerals.

Stuffed Olive:

Sea Monster:

25 Jul 2014 1:24:41pm

I invite you to refocus on my examples. Can you guarantee there are no blood minerals in your computer? That's a retorical question. It's almost certain that there is. Your consumption choices are aiding and rewarding warlords in Africa. The right thing to do would be to not reward them. You are making a cost-benefit trade-off with real human lives whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Same with greenhouse emmissions. Your consumption choices are killing people whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Closer to the topic. Focusing on boat arrivals favors those we can see over those we can't. Its another trade-off. The right thing to do would be to offer the same assistance to those who would come here if they could to those that do come here.

Did I detect a personal insult, BTW? Am I to be damned by unfavorable comparison? No matter, I can take it. Truth told I miss the beatings I used to get in the Unleashed days.

Stuffed Olive:

25 Jul 2014 4:53:05pm

Still not relevant. We must limit our emissions, not completely eliminate them. Intelligent debate centres on the biggest polluters which can be reduced by alternative energy. I keep all appliances and computers etc for as long as possible. 22 years before my washing machine totally carked it and I had to buy a new one and same story with fridge and motor car, 15 years with the TV which fortunately coincided with change over to digital. Current computer is 3 years old - previous one died aged 11, mobile phone still going strong. On asylum seekers who try to arrive by boat - they should never be sent to Nauru or Manus. We let in 180,000 (used to be more) regular migrants and as I've said many times, reduce that number and bring in more refugees. No insult meant or intended SM - you're imagining things. Trust you are well and thriving.

Sea Monster:

25 Jul 2014 6:15:02pm

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I commend you for minimising the cost side of the equation. I fear that's the best any of us rich people (by world standards) can do short of dying. But I still believe there is a trade off we each perform.

All well and good with me. Same old same old. Work. Sleep. Pick fights on the internet in the rest pauses.

rods:

Realist:

"Turning back boats is the one policy that has unambiguously achieved its objective of stemming the flow of boat people."

Thanks for that. Would all those that claimed here that it was Rudd reopening Manus Island that made the difference now admit they were wrong?

Furthermore, can all those who claimed that turning back the boats was impossible and would lead to conflict with Indonesia also admit they were wrong?

Then all those who ridiculed the Coalition's strategy could just humbly apologise.

After that there would probably be room to negotiate on an adjustment of the strategy in an environment of goodwill. But until the naysayers admit they were mislead and in turn misleading, the current rules need to stay. The slightest relaxation will only be used to attack and manipulate and it wouldn't be long before the flood resumed and the drowning's escalated.

Listening to those who have demonstrated success is always more productive than listening to the negative carpers who have been proved wrong again and again.

hidi:

prison:

hidi even if this "good policy" involves inhumane treatment of asylum seekers and the condemnation of all world aid organisations and the UN?

The deaths at sea are terrible accidents but those people weigh up the risks and may have had similar casualties if they had remained where they were.

Now instead of taking a risk on the sea, they take the risk of their family being beheaded by extremists or becoming a casualty of war because the boat option isn't available. There is no good option so maybe we should focus on trying to help them to find one?

"ANY POLICY"...i find this really disturbing to be honest. Anything goes as long as the boats stop... where does it end..?

harry:

25 Jul 2014 9:21:36am

Arguing that once can dismantle the rest of the steps to avoid encouraging people smuggling is as sensible as saying we don't need to prosecute tax cheats because the Tax Office is so good at checking tax returns.

The package of measures are what has brought the reduction in people smuggling activities. Navy action alone couldn't stem the flow without the number of boats having been drastically reduced by the range of other measures.

Lehan Ramsay:

25 Jul 2014 9:27:33am

I'm an ordinary person, not famous, not successful, don't have my own Super. Like others have said here, I am not being paid to comment, it's not my job, I'm not getting my wage to sit here all day and do a Facebook on the conversation. I don't agree, I don't want it to be done in my name. I don't like the pressure on the AMA, don't like the pressure on the ABC, don't even know which bank is the Commonwealth any more. Not in my name, Libs.

Lehan Ramsay:

25 Jul 2014 10:48:37am

Last time I looked Gumpie I was one of "The Australian People". So too, while they are in our custody, are the people on those islands and the people on that ship. In that, you know, people are acting on their behalfs as if they were "one of us". It's all relative, Gumpie. And so are they.

Lehan Ramsay:

25 Jul 2014 9:40:44am

I dunno, that must be what those regional newspapers are telling people, you know, all the News Limited ones. Please, don't feel, it really really annoys us. I guess being world-weary is how one feels when ones employee has shown their leaden feet, showing no leadership just at the moment that leadership was most needed, letting go of the people they promised to protect. I guess we cannot help cynicism, it is just that kind of a world. But I remember the deaths in custody, Doctor Mundine, only because I saw what a strain describing that awful, awful story, putting all the pieces together, put on the family of someone I cared about. It is not good enough. Will you write the story of these people? Somebody wrote it for you.

Original Aussie:

25 Jul 2014 9:44:54am

It's not a slow news week? Why two stories on Asylum Seekers? A bit of muck raking again? It used to be Single Parents, then Aboriginal People, and Welfare Bludgers, now Asylum Seekers, Boat Arrivals, Refugeeshave the elitist left wing loonies coming out of the woodwork to give their 8 cents worth?

clete:

25 Jul 2014 11:55:47am

I think it's a case of the journalists not wanting to give the LNP anymore airtime over the governments handling of the MH17 incident.By all accounts, the Abbott government is considered to be handling it extremely well. Therefore, we can't report on that, can we?

Lehan Ramsay:

25 Jul 2014 9:49:51am

Free association. Wasn't that something we were all being criticized for a year or so ago? It seems it's acceptable again, thank the Lord, thank heavens. Those babies are no doubt feeling a bit guilty about having anything to do with their mothers.

KK:

25 Jul 2014 9:51:24am

'we should also ensure there are alternatives for genuine refugees'. We have an alternative - the Humanitarian Resettlement Program. That it is limited to a set number is just a fact of life, but it offers hope to 13,500 people a year, risks no lives and excludes people smugglers and cheats.

Jessica:

25 Jul 2014 9:55:23am

How heartless our Government has become- we are talking about human beings like us, fleeing persecution. How can we as a nation turn our backs on them.If we continue to treat people this way it will go a long way into encouraging terrorismI am feeling deeply ashamed of calling myself an Australian Hiding information from the public is troubling and smacks of a fascist regime.

clete:

25 Jul 2014 10:02:53am

One major issue in this article has been overlooked by the author. And it's one that is at the heart of the governments policy of turning back the boats.

The vast majority of these current illegal immigrants (as distinct to the 70's Vietnamese refugees), are fleeing so-called persecution from their homelands. In doing so, they are travelling (via previously booked international flights) through less economically developed safe haven nations, like Indonesia, paying huge amounts of money to people smugglers in order to take them to Australia.To me, that sounds more like grabbing an economic opportunity, than it does about fleeing persecution.

Through our orderly immigration and refugee intake programs, we do more than our fair share. I believe that, per head of population, we have the second highest intake of any nation in the developed world.

Lehan Ramsay:

25 Jul 2014 10:06:46am

I'd like to see one of those reality tv shows, Doctor for A Day, Doctor Advertising and Doctor Minority Report go out to a detention centre and sort out all those malingerers. Those babies should be made to crawl by goodness.

Rob:

25 Jul 2014 10:08:49am

Here we go again- jumping at solutions without firstly understanding the problem.As with the GFC- the ME and the terrible MH17 tragedy the 'herd" rushes off to take one side or the other and seemingly not considering the causes of the problem and consequences of any remedial action.The same herd mentality which righty wails at the loss of so many lives on MH 17 rushes to lay the blame without being aware of the history which led to to that terrbile tragedy - without considering that without that history of and a little more patience MH 17 would have most likely made it home safely.

And its the same with aslyum seekers-they are PEOPLE,many of them kids, on that prison boat.What causes people to risk death at sea?Italy and Malta had 80,000 of them so far this year. Thousands died on their way- five hundred last week- most of them were Syrians-fleeing a war WE-being the West- helped create.Undoubtedly we shall soon see more refugees from Palestine and probaly the Ukraine.So by our very own gepolitical and or economic interests we create aslyum seekers- then we demonise them if they seek refuge from situations we helped create.As least the LNP under Fraser had the moral courage to take in those fleeing a situation our involvment in Vietnam helped create.Neither the LNP or sadly the ALP has that moral courage.If they did they would be raising the issue in the UN and telling our "friends" not to create more refugees.

meredith:

25 Jul 2014 10:09:59am

After the second World War we received into this country many of European descent - Greeks, Italians, Polish, Lithuanian and others fleeing the aftermath of war and devastation. Despite any blow back from the community these people showed their courage and tenacity by working at any job they could get despite many of them having higher skills. Now in some cases descendents of those people deny present day refugees from war torn countries that same chance. Just as Australia has profited by those refugees of the past, we would do the same today. Instead we decide to demonise them, treat them harshly and turn a blind eye to their suffering. When I read some of the shallow selfish comments here and elsewhere concerning asylum seekers, and hear the rhetoric of our political leaders, I do indeed wonder what has happened to Australia in the years since Menzies made his speech.

Gordon:

25 Jul 2014 5:30:00pm

And I will match you rant for rant.In those days there was an attitude of go out there build it, dig it, clear it and farm it. Rural nurses & teachers lived in dodgy billets & road crews lived under canvas and swung shovels. There was SFA welfare, and factories employed armies of non & low skilled workers in grubby unsafe conditions. Classes had 40-50 kids and if one got sick you paid full whack for the doctor and the medicines. Talk to some of those migrants about the hostels and camps they lived in & where they were sent.

If you want to recall the 40's & 50's let's have the rough with the smooth please.

We have built for ourselves a nice, squeaky clean, safe, environmentally friendly and bureaucratic Australia where building a road attracts high-court injunctions and if you whinge hard enough the council will tell your neighbours what colour their gateposts can be. Please ask the people who think this was a good idea what THEY would do with hundreds of thousands more eager migrants.

Personally and sincerely, I would be happy to see a bustling Australia with unlimited migrants doing what migrants do: working hard and building good lives. But the two pictures don't fit together.

Peter of Melbourne:

25 Jul 2014 10:13:00am

if the loony left wants to forgive and forget the murder of 2 dozen + australians last week i sure as hell will never advocate for one single bloody country shopper to enter into this nation even when we fix our own internal issues.

i always had this stupid view that australians would always stand for justice when other australians are wronged... i have been thoroughly disabused of that silly little notion over the past few days...

you lot want to save foreigners? do it with your own dime on your own time! australian taxpayer funds should be targeted at australians only.

Artful Dodger:

Lehan Ramsay:

25 Jul 2014 10:17:27am

And sure, I've got a big head thinking that Doctor Asssociate might be talking to little me, when he quotes Spike Lee. But anyway I've got a big head. Let it go Doctor Asssociate, you princess. Just be talking, there.

Easter Bunny:

25 Jul 2014 10:32:32am

Ah yes fear, boats, illegals, drownings, kids, depression, them, us, ad nauseum.Stop TALKING ABOUT IT will ya?STOP THE GUILT I sayI'm a fair dinkum RWNJ AustralianI don't want to knowScott and the general have it coveredLet me back to my miserable life

Meh:

25 Jul 2014 10:33:26am

Indonesia has laws that will execute foreigners caught with drugs.Australia fly's back the crews of the people smuggling boats after minimal detention to a fat pay check from home.And we wonder why there is a market for people smuggling.Yes major players in the ring are dealt with appropriately but there are always "human mules"that will take the quick buck and these are the only part of the ring that we have access too.We should be looking at the criminals and not the human suffering in this debate

CC:

25 Jul 2014 10:37:20am

Another day ending in Y and another day the ABC run their relentless anti-Abbott, anti government policy on border control. Another day when the mutual backslapping of Yank and co. go to town on how bad this government is. It's tiresome and becoming so predictable.

I think a lot of people are glad the government have restored some order to border control and if we stop the chaos and loss of life at sea that would have to be a good policy step.

The problems of dealing with all the poor people sitting in camps in PNG and Nauru are the government being relentlessly blamed for a problem that the ALP caused and the current government are cleaning up the mess left by a period of bad policy.

Peter the Lawyer:

25 Jul 2014 10:48:10am

I keep reading the same old arguments here again and again. Yet mostly people, especially those who dislike the Government's policy, seem to shy away from the central issues and worry about tangential matters of little importance.

The propositions are simple.

On the one side you have the 'refugee advocates.' They beleive that evryone who claims asylum is automatically a refugee and must be allowed to stay in Australia at least until their refugee status is detemined.

On the other side are those, like me who consider that the vast majority of the asylum seekers are economic migrants, who come to Australia because they kinow it is a rich country with lots of welfare. In that case the boats have to be stopped.

There is no need to discuss international treaties, refugee conventions or whether an asylum seeker is an illegal entrant. Neither is there any need to discuss compassion. I'm sure that people on both sides of the argument are just as compassionate as each other. The realsists just save their compassion for real refugees. The argument is one of whether these people really are refugees or not. and whether if we are lax the trickle will turn into a flood of those who are definiteley not refugees.

Vince:

25 Jul 2014 10:55:22am

"On the one hand...On the other side..."

You have left out the reasonable, intelligent people who believe that this issue has been blown way, way out of proportion and that Australia has lost the bloody plot. Are you one of those or an extremist?

Meh:

25 Jul 2014 11:03:03am

Correct Peter, however each asylum seeker must be processed once claiming asylum to ascertain the truth under international law. That is why there is such a bottleneck in regards to time spent in detention. We are spending too much time and wasted resources on processing economic refugees. And what is the penalty for entering our country illegally as an economic refugee, you get a flight home. In most cases this would be seen a decent sort of gamble.

Mark James:

25 Jul 2014 12:00:59pm

Peter, you missed out the proposed Malaysian Solution which (although not perfect) did address the perceived problem of "queue jumpers", while also addressing the rhetorical problem of Australia's having "sugar on the table" for economic migrants.

But, of course, the Coalition opposed that sensible middle-ground because it took away the political advantage that demonising asylum seekers affords them.

Joe Hockey even shed tears in Parliament over the thought of unaccompanied minors being sent to Malaysia.

"Is this what we want as a nation? To be responsible for sending children to an environment where we have no responsibility, no control, no oversight?" he asked.

No so concerned now, is he? With the Coalition looking to send people to Cambodia, with the Coalition keeping hundreds of children in conditions that are turning them slowly insane?

franklin:

25 Jul 2014 10:51:51am

Asylum seekers arriving in Australias migration zone from Indonesia via people smugglers are not coming directly from a country of persecution and are not in direct flight from persecution as specified by Article 31(1) of the Refugee Convention. By the time they have reached Indonesia they have left their alleged persecution far behind, on the other side of the world in fact. There are a few random acts of violence that occur to asylum seekers in Indonesia but no persecution. And most importantly the asylum seekers in Indonesia are able to register with the UNHCR and are not refouled / sent back to their countries of origin.

Father Frank Brennan is Professor of Law at the Australian Catholic University and wrote an informative article entitled An Indonesian solution A better approach to asylum seeker policy. The following are exerts:

Australian governments (of both persuasions) have long held the defensible view: "The condition that refugees must be 'coming directly' from a territory where they are threatened with persecution constitutes a real limit on the obligation of States to exempt illegal entrants from penalty. In the Australian Government's view, a person in respect of whom Australia owes protection will fall outside the scope of Article 31(1) if he or she spent more than a short period of time in a third country whilst travelling between the country of persecution and Australia, and settled there in safety or was otherwise accorded protection, or there was no good reason why they could not have sought and obtained protection there."

Like all other countries, we are rightly obliged not peremptorily to expel those persons arriving on our shores, legally or illegally, in direct flight from persecution. We are entitled to return safely to Indonesia persons who, when departing Indonesia for Australia, were no longer in direct flight but rather were engaged in secondary movement seeking a more favourable refugee status outcome or a more benign migration outcome.

Lehan Ramsay:

Keith Lethbridge Snr:

25 Jul 2014 10:57:18am

G'day Mike.

Thanks for your article.

The proposals your mates suggest are pretty much the same as the previous government brought in. It seemed like a good idea at the time (to some folk). However, by the time our most recent elections came around, Percy Public decided he didn't think much of it.

No doubt, at the next elections our compassionate brothers & sisters will be campaigning to "float the boats" again, so we'll have to wait & see which way Percy Public votes. Meanwhile, I congratulate our government for doing what it said it would do. The government has my full support on this matter ... so there's one vote.

Dove:

25 Jul 2014 12:41:46pm

Keith, I've no idea how many people changed their vote over this single topic, but I am of the opinion that it will remain a political issue well into the medium term. The LNP has the ALP over a barrel on this one, who now can only respond with trying to be even tougher or trying to be just a little bit different. There's enough perceived votes in it to make the wedge work, and perception is the only thing that counts. For most people the closest that they get to this is their living room tellie. Repeated errors by a government and a preferable leader in opposition will usually trump a single policy, IMHO

Lehan Ramsay:

25 Jul 2014 11:03:39am

ONE person gets to take on the system. One or a few people get to burn out trying to get something to change. Because everyone else is waiting for something concrete they can claim as their own. Get off your assses lazy people and take a little walk in Philip Nietscze's shoes.

EVAN:

25 Jul 2014 11:04:04am

It is quite simple some Australians want us to accept any person who can get to Australia and claim asylum other Australians want no asylum seekers at all and others are prepared to accept a certain number a year. At present the Australian voter just want those people who are approved as was shown by last years election.What Mr Steketee is arguing for is in essence an open border policy the moment you put any kind of control on refugee numbers you will have people trying to circumvent the policy as we had under the previous government with all the physical and mental harm that Mr Steketee and the refugee industry complain of.Australians saw what an open door policy looked like under the last government and they don't like it.

franklin:

25 Jul 2014 11:04:22am

In the past asylum was a regional problem. Refugees sought sanctuary within their own geographical or cultural environment with the aim of returning home as soon as they safely could. The revolution in communications, ease of transportation, enduring poverty, protracted internal conflicts and social upheaval have combined to create a pervasive feeling of discontent throughout third world countries. This in turn has led to a globalisation of population movement. The end result is that a combined mass of refugees, asylum seekers and illegal migrants is now converging on affluent western countries in the quest for a better life. Within this movement, refugees in need of sanctuary are a small minority. The overwhelming majority of those who move are either refugees who already have asylum - and thus are in no danger of persecution - or illegal migrants who more often than not try to pass themselves off as refugees. Increasingly, the ultimate purpose of this mass movement is not so much to leave as to arrive. While the phenomenon is humanely understandable, it becomes unacceptable to the countries of destination when the numbers amount to tens of thousands. Conversely, it is a boon to the smuggling rings that have turned the illegal movement of people into a multi-billion-dollar business.

Lehan Ramsay:

25 Jul 2014 11:16:55am

You didn't tell The Beatles they were insane for singing of love and pain and generosity and hope. So please don't tell me that I am just because I am not special to you. I am telling you. Do not do this in my name. Do not brand people as troublemakers and manipulators. Not in my name.

Lehan Ramsay:

25 Jul 2014 11:25:04am

Still I don't regard myself as legitimate - whatever that means - any less than they do. You don't need a passport to have a human right. While there are still human rights, I would still like our Government to abide by the laws of them.

Kashi:

25 Jul 2014 11:27:28am

The argument is always made that we must make it easier for refugees to access our applications process. Here is the simple fact. Plenty of refugees have access to this. Now that we no longer have thousands of unprocessed arrivals coming by boat the immigration officials can get back to doing what they are well trained to do which is selecting genuine refugees to come into our country for humanitarian reasons. Maybe the people coming by boat know that they would never truly qualify for this, and this is why they try and dodge our system. It's so funny to me that the so called bleeding hearts never acknowledge the fact that there is, in fact a queue, and for every iPhone toting, gold visa carrying boat arrival they let in, they leave another orphaned child, or maimed mother who truly has no resources to the ravages of real refugee camps around the world.

Patrick:

25 Jul 2014 11:31:31am

Fear not, the follow up to Operation Sovereign Borders will soon be Operation Remove Tony Abbott. The Liberal Party will implement this policy which will be universally received as the best move the Liberals ever made. If they cant complete the task then the Australian public will do it for them come next election.

greg:

25 Jul 2014 11:39:08am

Hmmm, it seems we are falling into the logic trap of thinking there are only 2 solutions here.

1. stop the boats. 2. allow the boats.

What is being missed is the point that was made in the original article - that is that there are better alternatives which, if put in place, will stem the flow of boats. All that people are trying to say is to stop being sucked into the "either / or" trap and look for a 3rd option which gives us what we really, really want: motivated, resourceful, innovative, entrepeneurial people.

One of the excercises I have run in high level critical thinking programs is to map the processes involved in running business. Then simply swap the labels of "business owner" or "project manager" or "CEO" and insert "asylum seeker".

Map the process and you will find that you have exactly the same skills, motivations, and processes in place. Just food for thought. I see overwhelming stories of success, innovation, integrity, gratitude and contribution from asylum seekers.

But what is most overwhelming is that when we change the labels, we change people's opinions about them. It is a striking and remarkable change that takes place in front of our eyes. Provide an alternative to being a "boat person" and you will stop seeing "boat people".

Simply put. there are more than 2 options. don't get sucked into thinking there are not.

ScottBE:

I agree greg and dancer... with all the negativity and hatred inspired by the government policy it is relieving to come across others who support reason and intelligent approaches to the question.

There are many more options than two or even three. We are limiting out national growth potential by excluding people who really want to be here for more than just an extended backpacker trip.

The new thinking that comes with the gratitude and relief of finding a safe home has the potential to help make Australia a place for other nations to admire. Instead our policy makes us a disgrace. Future generations will damn us for our abhorrent treatment of refugees just as we will be damned for abandoning our responsibility to address climate change in a meaningful and productive manner.

Lehan Ramsay:

25 Jul 2014 11:57:11am

It is so outrageous. While nobody could say for sure that there was a lot of internet surveillance and quasi-official manipulation of people's emotions and rational thoughts, it was just fine for that kind of spook talk "it's all in your head, you're just imagining things". But now we know it's far more prevalent than we thought. So, you people who thought you were being sent mad by someone in your office, someone in your family, you may well have been, study up. I remember watching a video of a woman who described how she thought she was being targetted by people in her office and how she came to realize that she was delusional and thought: no, honey, don't go jumping to conclusions there. Those women are in an absolutely insane situation, and if they weren't feeling defeated and suicidal there would probably be something wrong with them. It outrages me that someone who isn't even qualified to can stand there and say they are bunging it on. And it outrages me that we would be fed such rubbish in this day and age. The Government has people over there whose job it is to SEND them insane! What are you TALKING about?

Lehan Ramsay:

25 Jul 2014 12:07:10pm

Also, the Government is paying people who go onto this site and say over and over again that we should stop talking about this stuff. What are YOU talking about. You are sending US insane. Please stop this disgraceful use of our taxpayer's money. God only knows there are few enough of them as it is. If we get more poor people into the country, logically, we will have more taxes. Even if they don't work, they still have to eat, and those taxes they get from us buying things are still taxes and a damned sight more taxes than the corporate taxes are bringing in. Why else would they be so keen on consumption tax that they would be willing to re-jig the Federation to get them. It ain't Star Wars you know. It economics.

Lehan Ramsay:

25 Jul 2014 12:17:36pm

You want to lower people's wages, you want to bring in a poor class who get to be maids for everyone else. What are we making here, India? The Philippines? China? We are not moving into a third world status so that people can feel richer than others are we? Those people people will still be paying a lot of tax, they won't be able to avoid it like Clive Palmer does, like I bet you the accountants of ALL our politicians wangle. This is just crazy stuff. I do not want to go back to being a White Republic. England, Canada, America, Russia, can have it.

Lehan Ramsay:

25 Jul 2014 12:12:20pm

What I can't understand is why every WOMAN in this COUNTRY has not gone insane just from listening to the Government and their sycophants manipulate and dirty the waters of a decent employment system with their stupid games regarding leave for childbirth, childcare, payments for children. Add to that sexual harassment in the workplace, lower wages, and the kind of absolute conTEMPT for women that this government has exhibited and one can only reach the conclusion that EVERY woman in this country has gone INSANE by not going insane. I cannot BELIEVE how much of a clear, nasty strategy it has been to divide opinion and make people resent others. That's the kind of paternalism we're TALKING about here.

reality bites:

25 Jul 2014 12:15:41pm

Interesting to note that Canada had large ocean going ships with Tamils and Sri Lankans start to arrive and seek asylum, as they were seen as the next soft touch they accepted the first few boatloads but then had to change their migration law to one year mandatory detention for irregular maritime arrivals ,that included women and children they also changed the application for processing for irregular maritime arrivals. Seems to me that is alot of countries to pass through to get to your desired country of choice .

JC:

25 Jul 2014 12:18:17pm

EVERY poll including the election agrees with what the government is doing by a huge MAJORITY. So all the vocal minority lefties on this issue, please let the country be run how most of us want it to be.

Adam:

Walter:

25 Jul 2014 12:19:38pm

Why are people so sympathetic to these boat people. Few of them are genuine refugees fleeing genuine danger. Most are economic refugees just seeking a better life. They are coached as to what to say when they arrive. Many discard their passports, but for what purpose. Why would you do that if you were genuine. Many from Iraq and Afghanistan are simply fleeing military service, leaving their women behind to fend for themselves. Leaving others behind to fight for their country. Do we really want these type of people?

Mike (the other one):

25 Jul 2014 12:27:57pm

It's totally amazing, bewildering and perplexing how the ABC and the like can run article after article, story after story on this issue - my guess is there has been hundreds run in the last few years on The Drum alone. BUT there has been practically nothing presented about one of the real problems, probably the main problem driving the making of asylum seekers and refugees, that is overpopulation and over crowding. But that's political, media and business leadership for you I guess.

Lehan Ramsay:

25 Jul 2014 12:35:24pm

Lately I've been seeing some of the worst "journalism" I think I may have experienced in my life. It's like the leftovers, drained of any nutrients, all boiled together into the worst stew, blended down to remove any distinction of ingredients. Just a mess. This is indicative of there being too many cooks in the kitchen, none of whom have the faintest idea of interest in what food actually is. Get out of the business, find a little place with a garden in the country, sit and look at the nature for a while, it's really doing your head in.

Esteban:

James:

25 Jul 2014 12:48:22pm

"In waging war against people smugglers, we are punishing their clients, who have turned to us for help - help that we have offered through our membership of the Refugee Convention. The armoury directed at deterring asylum seekers from coming by boat, implemented by Labor and Liberal governments, is astonishing in its extent and ferocity."

You are completely missing the point.

Australia has generously accepted refugees into our country for many years but they must come to Australia legally. 50000 asylum seekers apply to come to Australia through a legal process every year. The majority are refused because the claims of persecution turn out to be bogus. However up to 20,000 refugees are brought to Australia and settled here in a safe and legal manner. The people smugglers prey on those who do not wish to use the legal system or who wish to game the system. The current crop of asylum seekers in the Indian Ocean netted a cool $500,000 for the smuggling network after they were scammed into believing they were going to New Zealand. The clients are complicit in this crime as they know that they are breaking our laws. Calling them desperate and referring to sensible border security measures as ferocious is absurd and demonstrates a clear lack of analytical thinking. Mr Steketee relies on emotional blackmail to make his point rather than proper research and analysis.

Reinhard:

25 Jul 2014 12:55:02pm

Thanks Mike and bravo for highlighting the inhumane policy that is Operation Sovereign Borders. Morrison's new 49% chance of torture standard for "complementary protection" is the most draconian and reprehensible part of the Abbott govt's asylum seeker policy. As was stated and true to form the Abbott opposition opposed the recommendations of the Houston committee, like the Malaysia swap deal. This would have been the most humane and effective means of curbing boat arrivals, in fact during the early part of 2010 while the policy was still in the discussion phase boat arrivals actually dropped for the first time since 2001. It's all there in B&W on the parliamentary website too, the page is called"Boat arrivals since 1976" and here are the numbers: 2009?10 -- 117 2010?11 -- 89

Joan:

25 Jul 2014 1:06:14pm

You make it sound like as if there was some sort of Golden Age for refugees. There never was . Post WW2 saw up to 20million displaced persons about 6million were repatriated to homelands and the last displaced persons camp closed 1959. Even then Australia was picky about who they would let in - their right. Motherhood feel good Menzies style statements easier to make and quote than reality experience sees happen. 50million plus people today looking for another place to call home has no easy solution as past experience shows. There was no Golden Age when millions could be absorbed by rest of world in an instant. Post war displaced people rarely got their first choice destination USA and there was a queue to get somewhere all the way to 1959.

Mr middle-of-the-road:

25 Jul 2014 1:14:09pm

There has been much talk about banks that are too big to fail.

There should also be an appreciation for the fact that there are some problems that are too big to solve. Issues like global population growth, climate change and ridding the world of poverty etc. They are far too big, have far too much grunt behind them and have too many interconnections with each other and other things that either shelter us or that we are parlaying off in our day-to-day lives. So, if you try and smite them in one policy blow as some seem to be suggesting, you just undermine under another aspect of society that we really value but whose place in the supporting structure of society we don't fully appreciate at present.

Be very careful what you wish for. There are ways of solving problems that are constructive and some that are disastrous. We must do the former.

Lehan Ramsay:

25 Jul 2014 1:16:16pm

Now. Have we cleared the air somewhat? There is a problem and it is the Israeli-Palestine one. If we cannot resolve this then we cannot deal with all the other problems that are stemming from system inequality.

zac48:

25 Jul 2014 1:23:09pm

The number of illegal immigrants held by the Australian government on Christmas Island has halved in the last twelve months and will halve again in the the next twelve months. Within a another year or two there will be no-one held on Christmas Island.....WHY?....Because the governments policy is working.

damon:

Frank:

25 Jul 2014 1:31:24pm

Just another opinion piece that differs from a majority of Australians, and offering nothing but hollow arguments for people smugglers and their cargo (simply because the Policy is working). Never mind us that have to put up with the consequences of the do-gooders and alike who seem to think Australian borders and internal security is something that should be broken down, and the Australian taxpayer and citizens should bear the monetary costs and social consequences of what you are advocating. Would be great if all the do-gooders and people smuggler advocates directed their energy instead at those countries where exodus is occurring and not at trying to play the guilt trip on those who know better.

ScottBE:

Frank you are right that the majority view is "rusted on" to the idea perpetrated by John Howard and continued by Mr Rudd, less so Ms Gillard, and now accentuated by Mssrs Abbott and Morrison.

This cynical view is honestly to be deplored. It is the effect of a superbly effective election strategy by John Howard and has been maintained in an Orwellian effort to maintain an imaginary war in order to placate and bring on side swinging voters who have a latent paranoia of invasion.

No-one thinks that border security is unimportant. This is not about border security. Thats just another catch cry used to justify this dangerous and cruel action. A label to explain their secrecy. Nothing more.

zac48:

25 Jul 2014 1:32:20pm

The real and only problem everyone here seems to be in denial about is "WORLD OVERPOPULATION".....If it wasn't for this catastrophic problem, none of the issues debated here would even exist......pardon my impertinence, but.... fools all.

Frank:

25 Jul 2014 6:28:37pm

Zac, the early 1900's saw the same old story of hardship and famine in the middle east, Africa and India with cry's for the western world for help. And yes, "world overpopulation" is the route cause for the ills of the world. Where most of the Western World seems to have learned this and has done something about it to maintain their own standards of health and welbeing, the areas where the problems are worst will never learn. Let all the do-gooders and alike so actively working to bring the problems here get on their own boat and go to the route cause of the problem instead. The do-gooders have of course been milking charity dollars for years and no nothing else beyond that.

Shocked Again:

25 Jul 2014 7:01:09pm

I agree that this is a contributory factor. Many Middle Eastern countries have enormous population bulges of children and youths. And no possibility of providing jobs. And a poor, corrupted distribution of oil riches.I don't know why UN does not spend more effort on these issues. Education of women helps to reduce birth rates also.

ScottBE:

25 Jul 2014 1:36:31pm

Mike has written a truly honest piece with journalistic integrity. The truth emblazoned across this page is that we are harming these innocent children and adults for no purpose other than .... (I suggest sadism is the core reason, but this is speculation based upon the evidence).

Mr Morrison's policy of secrecy also is inappropriate. It serves no useful purpose. I suggest that the practice of secrecy is contrary to their stated objective of deterrence. If the asylum seekers in Indonesia are aware of the mistreatment, the inhumane mental torture and physical neglect then the deterrence effect, if any exists, should be profound.

Mr Morrison is not about deterrence. I deny the deterrence effect from the outset. People who are sufficiently desperate to board a leaky boats and risk drowning do not do so unless there is a worse fate driving them to take such desperate measures.

Lets get over the opinion that all asylum seekers are "all" economic. If a person wants a better financial status they would not be willing to risk their lives. If they are coming here for the money, there are far easier options. Economic refugees (and people smugglers too) come here by plane. Their contacts are able to supply passports, visas and plane boarding passes - for enough money.

In sum, the present policy is extreme, misguided and a foolish, ill-considered abuse of humanity and human rights. It may stop a few boats (we don't really know for we have only propaganda to support the assertion) but is destroying lives in the process.

damon:

25 Jul 2014 2:16:24pm

"Their contacts are able to supply passports, visas and plane boarding passes"

The first two, perhaps. Boarding passes, no. But it is not as easy as novels suggest to obtain fake passports (Israeli intelligence had to steal real ones, which suggests that it's very difficult indeed). Apart from that, the fraud can be detected at the point of departure, the point of arrival, or when applying for asylum. Far better (and easier) to throw them away and get on a boat. And people risk their lives, and their freedom, every day. They lie, cheat, steal, and kill, often for motives far less cogent than a lucrative future in a wealthy country.

ScottBE:

25 Jul 2014 2:36:53pm

damon, there has been reported in the media, both ABC and MSM, that people smugglers and some refugees are indeed buying these items around 6 months ago.

This is my point: if they have sufficient money they can indeed buy whatever they need. Those who come for a better financial existence will more likely have sufficient to take this option, whereas those who flee persecution do so in desperation and don't have time to arrange these.

Lehan Ramsay:

25 Jul 2014 1:41:04pm

The Prime Minister's plan cannot work because it relies on some really dumb presumptions, what would you expect. The problem is a complex one, all indications I've seen are that the Israeli-Palestine problem really needs to be tackled seriously now. Politicians aren't really getting their heads around that. America's doing something really dumb over there, as usual. They probably need to get out of there, as do the Israelis. Why not give them a patch of Australia. We could have another "first settler" ceremony like the Americans did when they first settled Pine Gap. We could have fruit punch, some chocolate crackles.

neil:

25 Jul 2014 3:45:09pm

Actually an Australian Jewish state was considered during WW2 as a way to populate the north, it was called the Kimberly Plan. It was rejected by the Curtin Government in 1944 as Palestine had become the preferred option.

Dove:

mike:

25 Jul 2014 6:22:06pm

Why not give the Jews a patch of Australia to have as their state, you ask? Answer: it is not their sacred homeland. Israel and Jerusalem are. You might as well suggest that the Muslim Arabs of Saudi Arabia and Mecca all move to Australia.

Fully 85% of British Mandate Palestine became the exclusively Arab Palestinian state of Jordan; only 15% became the Jewish-Arab state of Israel (20% of Israelis are Muslim Arabs). The level of racism directed against the Jewish state is truly astonishing in this context.

Chris :

25 Jul 2014 1:50:33pm

Mike - This article does not reflect the views of the People of Australia as seen in the comments below and in the recent election - It also does not suggest good policy and is a biased and distorted view - The ABC staffers needs to understand they are expercted to support and report on the views of the people not a minority and are not a voice for left wing views

Ken:

25 Jul 2014 5:20:01pm

Rachel, by any definition, Nazi Germany was NOT a Democracy it was a fascist TOTALITARIAN state. They had laws that you probably would not agree with. Also in Nazi Germany there was only ONE point of view. The parties point of viewWouldn?t it be nice if the ABC published work on this topic from another point of view, say the majority of the public?s point of view ALSO?

Original Aussie:

25 Jul 2014 1:52:17pm

Child poverty IN Australia, 600,000 living in poverty, where is the story on them?Energy poverty IN Australia, more and more families going to charities because they cannot afford their energy bills?where is the article on this?

Please ABC lets give the *Boats, Asylum seekers, Refugee's* articles a bit of a rest and concentrate on the serious issues facing our own -

Rachel70:

Okay so defending what is and isn't legal isn't worthy enough a topic for you?

I'm sure that if we had articles on all the things you mentioned, but they dare question the government of the day, you'd be saying "Why have we got an article on this and not such and such?"

Personally I'd love it if the ABC would give the articles from the IPA a rest because I don't see why public money should be spent on people advocating for the privatization of everything. Unfortunately that doesn't look like it's going to happen any time soon. And if it did not only would there be supposed howl after howl of 'left wing bias' but there would be even more funding cuts.

HPH:

25 Jul 2014 4:02:35pm

Funny how, all of a sudden, the right wing supporters want to discuss about Child poverty IN Australia, Energy poverty IN Australia and poor Australian families in economic distress etc. when the "Boats, Asylum seekers, Refugee" issue pops up everytime!

And the same people forget all these and come to defend rich 1% unashamedly, who are exploiting Australian workers and their families by selling our natural resources and allowing mining profits to go off-shore, when the issue of "corporate greed and selfish business interest in market capitalism" pops up !!!

Lehan Ramsay:

25 Jul 2014 2:00:36pm

I'd like to suggest that Russia give up a part of an edge of their landmass for them. I know they won't like that either. But they have the biggest one. And more of it is becoming viable because of this global warming.

Bombastic:

25 Jul 2014 2:42:35pm

Very few truly care for people, the Hmong in Laos, the North Koreans, the Pol Pot unresolved aftermath, landmines & cluster-bombs in SE Asia. I mean all we do is write letters to editors. Wow, what erstwhile contribution & effort! Sit back on our sofas with a soda & watch TV to recover!

Brian of the Beaches:

25 Jul 2014 2:57:25pm

It is interesting that the Federal Government chooses to appear to be all action, caring and macho in doing all it can to obtain the return of the bodies of Australians killed in the recent Malaysian Airlines tragedy in the Ukraine whilst at the same time keeping 153 refugees/boat persons (some may even refer to them as dare I say it "humans") on a secured boat in the high seas in waters not belonging to Australia for well over 1 month. Can anyone else see the hypocricy in this? These people, whatever their reasons for attempting to better their lives, are being kept in a boat where I understand they are only allowed on deck for 3 hours a day. Is this what the Government calls the humane treatment of human beings. I also note that we get a daily commentary on what Abbott and Bishop and Co are doing or not doing for the Australians killed in the Ukraine and yet we hear nothing from them or indeed from the media and other commentators about human beings who are being locked up in a boat against their will who are apparently still alive. I guess they are not Australian citizens and so have no rights or human dignity. It is an interesting juxtaposition of world events.

Coogera:

25 Jul 2014 3:27:56pm

Brian

Real Australians expect their government to attend to this tragedy affecting Australians not devote this time to a bunch of uninvited foreigners seeking a better future in Australia. Why are these Sri Lankans any more important than the worlds 51 million refugees?

Coogera:

25 Jul 2014 3:04:50pm

The key issue here is whether Australia can control migration or not. It may well be that all the LNP and ALP efforts to do this may be undermined so that anyone who manages to get to Australian waters will be guaranteed a place with full access to all the benefits Australians have worked hard to achieve.

The flow will be determined by access to transport. Naturally as in the past the flow will only gradually increase as trafficker businesses respond to the business opportunity. As the word gets around the demand will soar as families make their way to Indonesia. Transport from larger vessels in Africa and the sub continent can't be discounted. This will appear even more attractive as the EU slams its doors tight. Once the momentum increases it will be virtually impossible to stop it.

Large numbers of refugees will result in the collapse of any processing system including detention camps. Health, education and welfare systems will weaken and collapse with excess demand and as available resources are poured into law and order agencies.

Ultimately we have the choice of controlling our own destiny or placing that in the hands of others. If the Australian government with the will of the Australian people cannot achieve that then we are largely finished as a nation.

robert:

25 Jul 2014 3:12:14pm

There is this great myth propagated by the left wing media that they are refugees... they are NOT! They are economic migrants seeking to freeload off of us.If I was poor and homeless and I came to your house and insisted on living there you'd call the police and have me removed...it's the same thing.

clete:

25 Jul 2014 3:58:28pm

Anyone noticed that most of the posts on this site are becoming more and more strident in their hatred of Abbott lately.Would it have anything to do with both our PM and Julie Bishop receiving a lot of worldwide praise for their handling of the MH17 incident?Is panic amongst the Left starting to set in? Love it!!!

Privatise Aunty:

25 Jul 2014 3:57:46pm

Good grief, another sob story, one after the other.

Dear ABC, it is obvious even to the most casual observer that you do not agree with the Governments Border Protection Policies and as such you continually voice your opposition with articles promoting an open border group think.

Your charter is to provide a balanced viewpoint, on this matter you have failed miserably.

Get over it, the boats have been stopped, the vast majority like an orderly immigration program.

damon:

25 Jul 2014 4:02:50pm

Well, most of us have opinions on what to do with the 50-150 asylum seekers on the average boat. What would we do if the average cruise liner appeared laden with 'refugees'. I'm indifferent, provided I don't have to accommodate any of them, but I'd like the opinions of both the pro- and anti - lobby.

Coogera:

25 Jul 2014 4:34:13pm

Damon

The scenario is not outside the realm of possibilities. There should not be much difference in getting the ship to turn around. The ethical dilemma would be what would you do if the ship was scuttled. If the incident was likely to be repeated many times then vaporising all would be the only option. This is why encouragement of boat arrivals only brings even greater moral dilemmas.

Don:

25 Jul 2014 4:10:22pm

Well it's since been announced that the boat will dock here. Now listen, we are people of the heart, we must help everyone. I feel so so sad and also unhappy at the awful barbs and arrows of outrage emanating from our so-called 'Joe public'. I can live under a roof with warm clothes, soup or coffee or cocoa, listen to music, and drink. Would not all of us invite the needy who have nothing, into our loungerooms and give 'em larrydooley? ie. poached eggs on toast, and hearty soup? Many of us would go guarantor for many years for allocations, providing accommodation, food, etc. Dear govt., give 'em a health check, and send 'em to us, your wonderful public. But from now on, Tamil Nadu can call theirs' home.

Lehan Ramsay:

25 Jul 2014 4:27:49pm

It's perfectly obvious isn't it? Any policy that relies on shifting people off and making them totally miserable is a policy that will only work by getting progressively crueller and crueller. As people get more and more immune to calls for compassion. Our leaders say we don't want them, try to push them off onto others. People say; don't be cruel. They feel guilty, feel wrong. This makes them behave more badly. There is really only one solution. We must look beyond the problem. Nobody should have to be a buffer zone, Israel may have been the right solution at the time, under the circumstances it's not any more.

Mathew:

25 Jul 2014 5:28:08pm

Two simple questions:1. Is the treatment by the Australian Government in detention centres truly worse that the persecution these people are escaping from?2. Earlier today I heard a lawyer talking about only returning people to a safe place. What is a safe place? There are plenty of areas in Australia that I wouldn't consider 'safe'.

Coogera:

25 Jul 2014 6:40:16pm

Marilyn

Just let go of the deterrents and the small number of refugees will easily become a flood. If you want to convey that all are welcome then you may get a shock what all actually means. By then it will be too late as you are swept into the scrap bin of history.

Shocked Again:

25 Jul 2014 6:35:22pm

Mandatory detention does work, as part of an overall strategy. It is time for a bipartisan agreement, as the major parties are not too far apart, and it is clear that a majority of Australians want the asylum seeker process regularised. But detention time could be reduced to a minimum, preliminary security clearance,if parties would agree on reintroduction of TPVs with a right to work . No genuine asylum seeker in fear of persecution could object to this.let's get real. They are issued and renewed without too much trouble in many European countries. Citizenship with full complement of benefits should be offered much further down the years. Let it be earned. It has always puzzled me how people in fear for their lives are happy to go home regularly once they get their OZ passports. Would persecutors not be waiting to pounce? I am sure most WW2 Jewish refugees would not have gone home for many decades, if ever.Migration is what is happening now, facilitated by the internet, better transportation,satellite and mobile phones, and criminal gangs diversifying their "merchandise".

JohnnoH:

25 Jul 2014 6:41:38pm

With today's monumental backdown by Morrison and cronies and they have egg all over their collective faces, at last those boat people will off that prison hulk. Funny they had to bury the annoucement on a Friday afternoon in the mist of MH17 and the Israel/Hamas conflict

al:

25 Jul 2014 7:26:09pm

Mike, where have you been for the past 7 months? There have been no illegal boat arrivals into Australian territory for 7 months, so something IS working.This last boat was intercepted after sending out a distress call, and no doubt only attempted the voyage after receiving encouragement from within Australia.